Atheists.

[Necrosis]

any objections to anything i say, could you keep it here. people are raising the same points in different threads and i dont see any point in answering the same question over and over from different people.

[GET_BIGGER]

I set Stellas thread as a sticky for atheist debate.

[Necrosis]

best kind. thanks.

[logical?]

Well if you post a comment in a thread which I disagree with,a nd which I think is wrong, I'll post a reply in that thread.

Otherwise you can have free reign to post whatever you like, where ever you like, yet atheists are supposed to keep disagreements restricted to this thraed?

[Necrosis]

no, just the ones directing there comments at me. you have brought up several things to which i have already spoke about numerous times along with sandy, and i think the problem is you havent read anything i have been saying. if your arguments were posted here others wouldnt bring up the same arguments, sound logical.

ive answered the same questions over and over.

[logical?]

Well, it's your job to.

You're the one making big claims.

[Necrosis]

what big claims. if you have read any philosophy, anything on logic and reason you know these things.

1)nothing cannot create something
2)something has to be eternal, i even have axioms for this.
3)something has to be uncaused.
4)infinite or all-knowing is impossible. you cant store three apples in a two apple bag. our brains are the two apple bag.

no big claims, common sense, i dont know why your even arguing it.

like i have said go to www.avantlabs.com and too metaphysics and too "why is there something insted of nothing". you should have no more questions after reading the thread. i hope we can come to an agreement as i see some like sandy are resisting logic like they are allergic to it.

[logical?]

what big claims. if you have read any philosophy, anything on logic and reason you know these things.

1)nothing cannot create something
2)something has to be eternal, i even have axioms for this.
3)something has to be uncaused.
4)infinite or all-knowing is impossible. you cant store three apples in a two apple bag. our brains are the two apple bag.

no big claims, common sense, i dont know why your even arguing it.

like i have said go to www.avantlabs.com and too metaphysics and too "why is there something insted of nothing". you should have no more questions after reading the thread. i hope we can come to an agreement as i see some like sandy are resisting logic like they are allergic to it.

You've misinterpreted what I've written if you think I'm arguing against this. Seriously dude.

All I've said is that nothing cannot create something, in the system we occupy as we know it. Does this hold for other systems or outside of this system? It could, it couldn't.
This applies to 2). Your axioms are only relative to this system.

I've never argued against 4).

And finally, you're the one making ludicrous claims. What are you saying, stuff like 'we can't know God because God is infinite and finite cannot know infinite' ?

Seriously dude, you pretend like yours is based on logic and reasoning, but take a step back and read that assertion....

[Necrosis]

your missing the point about what nothing is.to say perhaps there is a different nothing that can create something in a different system is like saying "what if there is a different type of infinite". there can be no different types of nothing,black, red, infinite. and if there is, then they are not the same type of thing thus your argument is invalid. if nothing creates something somewere it is not nothing. no variant forms of nothing can exist because characteristics have to be ascribed to explain how this nothing creates a something. something interacting with nothing is not possible. your argument boils down to, what if there was a different type of nothing(thus making it something) that allows it to make something(then you have infinite regression of causes). your asserting that if we had different logic, brains, reasoning, and concepts these things could happen

your saying all along that perhaps a different type of nothing exists, THERE IS NO SUCH THING, AND IF THERE WAS (IN YOUR IMAGINARY SCNERIO) THIS DIFFERENT TYPE OF NOTHING THEN THE TYPE WE HAVE WOULD BE SOMETHING BY THE SIMPLE VIRTUE OF BEING DIFFERENT THEN OUR NOTHING. again this is a analogy to your statement "what if pythagarous theorem in which the hypoteneuse was NOT equal to the sum of the two angles?. there is no such thing and it isnt logical, it does not occur. insted of making of imaginary scenarios based on nothing but poor logic for one, and total utter fantasy, stick with science like i do, the argument works out better.
 
axioms can only apply to reality not your imaginary world were eternal has a different defintion. if there is a different eternal it is not eternal. its either the case that there things are the same or different they cannot be both. please dont say "what if in a another world things were different and the same".

and no i dont know what god is, how he works, what he looks like, i just know god is. i can no the implications of what he is, but i cannot know what he is in the sense that i know this keyboard. to know god is to be god, and we are not gods. i dont know what it is to be omnipotent,omniscent, all-knowing etc etc because i cannot and never will be.

god to me is consciousnous. and i have reasons to beleive this.

[logical?]

your missing the point about what nothing is.to say perhaps there is a different nothing that can create something in a different system is like saying "what if there is a different type of infinite". there can be no different types of nothing,black, red, infinite. and if there is, then they are not the same type of thing thus your argument is invalid. if nothing creates something somewere it is not nothing. no variant forms of nothing can exist because characteristics have to be ascribed to explain how this nothing creates a something. something interacting with nothing is not possible. your argument boils down to, what if there was a different type of nothing(thus making it something) that allows it to make something(then you have infinite regression of causes). your asserting that if we had different logic, brains, reasoning, and concepts these things could happen

your saying all along that perhaps a different type of nothing exists, THERE IS NO SUCH THING, AND IF THERE WAS (IN YOUR IMAGINARY SCNERIO) THIS DIFFERENT TYPE OF NOTHING THEN THE TYPE WE HAVE WOULD BE SOMETHING BY THE SIMPLE VIRTUE OF BEING DIFFERENT THEN OUR NOTHING. again this is a analogy to your statement "what if pythagarous theorem in which the hypoteneuse was NOT equal to the sum of the two angles?. there is no such thing and it isnt logical, it does not occur. insted of making of imaginary scenarios based on nothing but poor logic for one, and total utter fantasy, stick with science like i do, the argument works out better.
 
axioms can only apply to reality not your imaginary world were eternal has a different defintion. if there is a different eternal it is not eternal. its either the case that there things are the same or different they cannot be both. please dont say "what if in a another world things were different and the same".

and no i dont know what god is, how he works, what he looks like, i just know god is. i can no the implications of what he is, but i cannot know what he is in the sense that i know this keyboard. to know god is to be god, and we are not gods. i dont know what it is to be omnipotent,omniscent, all-knowing etc etc because i cannot and never will be.

god to me is consciousnous. and i have reasons to beleive this.

- No, I think you're missing my point usmokepole. That's not what I'm saying. Rather, I'm saying what if there is a different system- which has completely different laws and axioms to ours- in which nothing can produce something? Not different types of nothing- that, obviously- like you say- would be silly. Simple misinterpretation- obviously I would be silly to suggest that.

You have to allow this. If you don't, then you are saying that the axioms and laws within our system are uniform, everywhere. And this includes for God.

[logical?]

i just know god is.

I'll go easy because I think this might be a misprint. Are you saying that you know God is, or that you believe but don't know (ie faith) that God is?

[Necrosis]

yes im saying im so convinced in my faith that i know that god exists. but it is still faith none the less, i have have no concrete evidence. if god wanted us to know he exists then he would. faith is needed.

here is something cool to read about information theory and DNA which proves only intelligence can create codes, what DNA is. you seem intelligent so have a read. go to were it says here to read the whole debate. he posted it on the infidels board to make sure it was a good argument. i think there is evidence of god. its a fairly new argument one you might not have heard but another fella named yuckley is propoing the same thing. it really is a great argument. have a look let me know what you think if you care to read it, or anyone else.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm

[logical?]

Sorry, but that's not knowledge. Granted it's faith, and belief. But it doesn't satisfy other requirements of the definition of knowledge.


I had a look, but I really don't know enough about DNA and biological processes- I know very little, in fact. However, I had a look at the overview of the argument, and it seems that the key premise is this-

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

or

(2) All codes that we know the origin of come from a mind.

But I don't view this as particularly strong. The second version is better re-worded, as it includes the clause, 'that we know.' The first version includes a similar clause, but it is more relegated. However, both versions acknowledge that it is only the case that we do not know of any natural process able to create coded information.

This does not logically imply that there is no such natural process- or a process other than conscious creation.

Just because we don't know the existence of some object, thing, process etc, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that it's not real.

It seems like a basic mistake so I won't press it- perhaps you can explain this better?

[GET_BIGGER]

Sorry, but that's not knowledge. Granted it's faith, and belief. But it doesn't satisfy other requirements of the definition of knowledge.

How do you know? You been there with him throughout his life and experiences?

Everyone has the right to decide for himself the requirements that he so choses for his own definition of knowledge......which is really the only thing that matters. 

[logical?]

So basically, you're arguing that what constitutes knowledge is subjective and relative to the 'knower'?

If this is the case, can you argue what's wrong with sufficiently justified true belief (Gettierised)?

Of course everyone has the right to choose for herself or himself what she or he counts as knowledge. But does this actually change what knowledge is? I don't think so.

[GET_BIGGER]

Knowledge is whatever that person makes of it. 

[Necrosis]

Sorry, but that's not knowledge. Granted it's faith, and belief. But it doesn't satisfy other requirements of the definition of knowledge.


I had a look, but I really don't know enough about DNA and biological processes- I know very little, in fact. However, I had a look at the overview of the argument, and it seems that the key premise is this-

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

or

(2) All codes that we know the origin of come from a mind.

But I don't view this as particularly strong. The second version is better re-worded, as it includes the clause, 'that we know.' The first version includes a similar clause, but it is more relegated. However, both versions acknowledge that it is only the case that we do not know of any natural process able to create coded information.

This does not logically imply that there is no such natural process- or a process other than conscious creation.

Just because we don't know the existence of some object, thing, process etc, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that it's not real.

It seems like a basic mistake so I won't press it- perhaps you can explain this better?

no your correct, only man-made things contain coded information that has semantics. like for instance ink and paper compose a message but that information conveyed on the paper is seperate from the mediums(ink and paper). the 1's and 0's used in information technology code and decode for infomation seperate from the 1 and 0 they are information. no natural process can create information, that we KNOW of. of course if something comes along like dna this argument falls flat on its face. but as of now it proves intelligence created dna using shannons definition of information and direct evidence from information theory. quite ingenius actually. science changes and evolves so this theory could change, the yuckley guy who started it is actually a firm agnositic, with no leanings. 

there could be another naturally occuring code, making the argument invalid. but for now mind is the only thing that can create code. people may bring up snowflakes, etc etc. but the argument went on for a year and a half, so all those arguments were brought up.

interesting proposal none the less. i actually dont like intelligent design arguments the more i pick them apart, so are good, some are very bad. im still not on dennetts side for evolution, nor goulds. anyway read the whole thread if it interests you, if it is correct and it seems it is, it is fairly strong evidence of intelligent creation.

[logical?]

no your correct, only man-made things contain coded information that has semantics. like for instance ink and paper compose a message but that information conveyed on the paper is seperate from the mediums(ink and paper). the 1's and 0's used in information technology code and decode for infomation seperate from the 1 and 0 they are information. no natural process can create information, that we KNOW of. of course if something comes along like dna this argument falls flat on its face. but as of now it proves intelligence created dna using shannons definition of information and direct evidence from information theory. quite ingenius actually. science changes and evolves so this theory could change, the yuckley guy who started it is actually a firm agnositic, with no leanings. 

there could be another naturally occuring code, making the argument invalid. but for now mind is the only thing that can create code. people may bring up snowflakes, etc etc. but the argument went on for a year and a half, so all those arguments were brought up.

interesting proposal none the less. i actually dont like intelligent design arguments the more i pick them apart, so are good, some are very bad. im still not on dennetts side for evolution, nor goulds. anyway read the whole thread if it interests you, if it is correct and it seems it is, it is fairly strong evidence of intelligent creation.

- Well, I don't think it does prove it. Like you said, it's about what we know NOW. That can change at any point in time in the future- like he said, we could discover a natural process tomorrow. So, a natural process is conceivable. Depending on your position, plausible. If this is the case, then, what does it actually prove? At best it only proves that it's a current available option (I'm not versed in what the other options are)- or at best best, it's the only current option. Does this mean that because it's the only current option, it's accurate? No- it doesn't logically follow, and so it isn't a proof, merely a postulation.

It's just that proposition 2) is weak, insofar as the whole argument is considered as a proof. If you were to consider it as a postulation- fine, I have no prolbem with that- then I would accept that it is the current option. However, in  saying that it's a proof that DNA comes from the mind- it just isn't. The premise, 2) doesn't prove anything except for the state of our knowledge at this point in time.

- You raise an interesting point about information. In the case of the ink and paper- is information contained in the composition- the ink and paper- or in our heads? Where is it? I think it's perceptual- it exists in our head. A piece of ink and paper in itself is just that- ink and paper. The meanings in it are created by us, by our system of language. Just as if I had a belief system that said that when the volcano belches fire, the Gods are angry- when I saw a volcano belching fire, and inferred that this is informing me that the Gods are angry, this process of reasoning and extraction of information is in my head. I don't think it's the same as with DNA. It seems that you must draw a distinction between information able to be consciously perceived and 'worked' (ie through reasoning) and merely a set of chemicals and biological entitities which behave and react in such a fashion as to induce behaviour in other entities. Is this second thing information? Well, if it is, it's in a grossly different way to the first.


- I'm going to go through the thread very slowly, lol. I get a bit wistful and hazy when they start talking about DNA so it's going to be tough

[logical?]

Knowledge is whatever that person makes of it. 

Could you demonstrate that, please?

Let me clarify. There are two people, usmokepole and logical? ( ). usmokepole and logical? both get hit by busses. usmokepeople stands up from the road and says, 'i know i was just hit by a bus!' logical? gets up and says, 'i know i was just hit by an incredibly attractive dinosaur in a bikini!'

Are you saying that both usmokepole and logical can be said to know what hit them, or to know what they are talking about?