Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Show
| | |-+  Libertarianism and Religion
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 16   Go Down

Author Topic: Libertarianism and Religion  (Read 39163 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

fatcat

  • Guest
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #135 on: February 25, 2009, 09:37:31 PM »

I am just saying it has been my experience that such is not the case.  I am a deist, as such I do not believe in any revealed religions, just a creator.  Since most of what we have created is not found in nature, I highly doubt a non-intelligence (nature) could have created life, something we have yet to create, besides bacteria genomes.  And even if we could create intelligent life, that would just prove to me even more that it takes intelligence to create life.

there is lots of evidence for Abiogenisis

Evolution is pretty much as close to proven fact as its possible to get.

I'll assume that you agree with both these premises, and that by "create life" you mean create the conditions for life. If however you think there is a theory with more evidence than evolution and abiogenesis, then I'll be happy to talk about those, but I'm trying to keep this post to a reasonable size.

Even if there was no evidence on abiogenesis or evolution, it would not make your position any more or less reasonable.
Whether or not we know how life was made does nothing to address the validity in claims about god.

We don't know where X came from so god must have made X is deeply flawed thinking, it also works for every conceivable deity.

What reason is there to believe your deity made the universe anymore than Nyx, Ymir, or transdimensional pixies?. In your words you've already structured the issue so that a god is a neccesary answer. for life to be created, it needs a creator. This same linguistic presumption occurs when referring to existence as "creation" or asking "if god didn't make the universe, who did?"

I'll come at this in 2 ways.

1. The reasoning that, because we don't know the origin of life, or the origin of existence, is not answered in anyway by saying a god did it. What made the god? the usual answer is, it was just there / was always there. This adds nothing, you could equally say the universe was there. It does nothing to explain a mystery (how did existence come about?) by replacing it by a bigger mystery (how did god come about?).

2. You are not providing any evidence for the existence of a creator god. You have merely stated that because you do not know any other way life could have come about, god must have done this. This is not a logical way to deduce facts about reality, as it is in essence a non-sequitir. I could just as easily say, I don't know anyway life could have come into being, so all atoms must actually be super intelligent beings that self organize in complicated ways.

This is commonly known as the Argument from Incredulity, or the Argument from ignorance.

Quote
"The solar system must be younger than a million years because even if the sun were made of solid coal and oxygen it would have burned up within that time at the rate it generates heat." (An argument from ignorance, from 19th century encyclopedias, based on the assumption that because there was no means known at that time of producing heat more efficient than coal, this logically put a limit on the Sun's possible age. In fact in the 20th century with the discovery of radioactivity and nuclear fusion, the sun's age was more correctly dated at many billions of years old instead. The 'ignorance' in this case was assuming that no fuel source could be more efficient than coal and oxygen.)

Your argument also relies on the god of the gaps. Because we cannot explain something scientifically, god must have done it.

Say one day we 100% without a doubt prove how life came about without the existence of a god. Would you really concede no god exists? or would you merely shift the gap of explanation say, Well where does energy come from? Who made the laws of reality? Well if you can't answer it, I can't think of a way it could have been made except by a great intelligence, so there must be a super intelligent being that has done this.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

This of course excludes the possibility that no being created the universe, that the universe has always been here, or another option. I have absolutely no idea how the universe came into being, however, this doesn't make it logical for me to inject whatever idea I prefer. At one point humans had absolutely no knowledge of what stars where, or that stars were formed in nebula. It would not have been logical to invent a god to explain it, rather it would be reasonable to accept our lack of knowledge, and strive to explain it with evidence, not just an invented preference.

you have done nothing to actually provide any evidence of this god, rather you have seen something in the universe, and you are going to claim a god created it. In order for this position to have any validity, you then need to prove this god exists, or show how the existence of life

As I have mentioned before, the argument for incredulity has superficial explanatory power, but it can be used for anything. There is no logical connect between you not being able to think of any other explanation, and it being so.

Extremely complex structures can form from chaotic systems. I could claim that the giants causeway had to have been made by intelligence, because I don't know any way complex rock formations could be made without intelligence, and if smarter minds than I hadn't worked out how it was made, that might fly for a while.

Hell, its called the Giants causeway because people used the myth of a giant to explain how it was formed. Would it prove the existence of giants if we had no explanation? Would it be rational believe a giant did it just because there was no explanation for it 300 years ago? No. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of fact, to believe that anything should be believed until it is disproved.

I've been sloppy here and given you lots of room to address things that aren't actually important, so I'll condense my thoughts.

1. I have pointed out a number of fallacies I have seen in your argument, I'd like to get your feedback on them. If you disagree these are fallacies, then I am happy to go more in depth of the fallacy before we move on.

2. To condense point 1, I would like to see you demonstrate the existence of god without resorting to an Argument from Ignorance.

For example, if I were to try and prove the existence of the sun, I would not start by claiming that I don't know any other way the earth would get heat energy, as that already assumes that the sun exists, and since there are no other explanations it must be the sun.

A proper account of proof for existence of the sun would involve observations of its properties and effects, observation about its origin, and an account for the fallibility of its existence.

It is a falsehood to believe atheism to be the opposing view of deism. It is not a choice between either the universe has no reason or explanation, or it was made by a god. Atheism is merely addressing the claim of existence of gods.

I'm not sure where the idea comes about that it is so terrible to accept that there are some things that are impossible to know at the present moment, and why therefore by default, any explanation must be more valid than no explanation. The burden of proof is on the claimant. I could claim that since we don't know exactly how the brain works, then it must be a transcendent soul that provides us with intelligence, but it would be a stupid position to take because my lack of knowledge of the brain does nothing to prove the existence of a soul, rather i am just using the gap of knowledge to back up belief in something i want to believe in.

I have seen no evidence to believe in any god, over any other supernatural being, ghosts, pixies, demons. This is not meant to be sarcastic or belittling, if you think your belief is more valid than these others, then I would like to see the basis you use that cannot equally be applied to other supernatural beliefs.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2009, 09:43:11 PM by fatcat »
Logged

blackie

  • Guest
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #136 on: February 25, 2009, 09:41:52 PM »

Logged

Diogenes The Cynic

  • Cynic. Pessimist. Skeptic. Jerk.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3727
    • View Profile
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #137 on: February 25, 2009, 10:47:25 PM »

I should say I find atheists to be just as close minded when discussing the idea that an intelligent being created life as religious people are about discussing the validity of their religion.

I'm plenty open minded.

Heres an open invitation to anyone who has a religious belief on this board. Tell me what it is, and why you believe it to be true, and I will evaluate it and tell you whether I agree, and the reasons why I do or don't agree.


I believe it is wrong to steal.

The philosopher will tell you it is wrong to steal because since everyone has a reasonable expectation that they dont like to be stolen from, that they canot take from others.

I disagree, and rather assert that although everyone has this reasonable expectation, stealing is wrong because G-d said so.

Then you're a dipshit.

I hope you can see the irony of a person whose signature is a quote about a logical fallacy (misplaced burden of proof) would only resort to an ad hominem attack.
Logic only applies to arguments, not insults.

So, you're transgendered, eh?

I wonder... you know how people who get limbs amputated still "feel" the amputated limb for years after its gone. Its called phantom limb syndrome. Do you have it for your missing genetillia?
Logged
I am looking for an honest man. -Diogenes The Cynic

Dude, I thought you were a spambot for like a week. You posted like a spambot. You failed the Turing test.

                                -Dennis Goddard

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #138 on: February 25, 2009, 10:59:17 PM »

So, you're transgendered, eh?

I wonder... you know how people who get limbs amputated still "feel" the amputated limb for years after its gone. Its called phantom limb syndrome. Do you have it for your missing genetillia?

Do some research on transgendered people.  Not all of them have had surgery. 
Logged

Spideynw

  • Dead
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #139 on: February 26, 2009, 10:21:39 AM »


there is lots of evidence for Abiogenisis

Evolution is pretty much as close to proven fact as its possible to get.

I really have not looked into either in depth, so I really do not know how valid they really are.

Quote
I'll assume that you agree with both these premises, and that by "create life" you mean create the conditions for life. If however you think there is a theory with more evidence than evolution and abiogenesis, then I'll be happy to talk about those, but I'm trying to keep this post to a reasonable size.

I posit no theory as to how we were created.  It is irrelevant to me how we were created.

Quote
Even if there was no evidence on abiogenesis or evolution, it would not make your position any more or less reasonable.
Whether or not we know how life was made does nothing to address the validity in claims about god.

True

Quote
We don't know where X came from so god must have made X is deeply flawed thinking, it also works for every conceivable deity.

That is not my assertion.

Quote
What reason is there to believe your deity made the universe anymore than Nyx, Ymir, or transdimensional pixies?

My only claim is that the Creator is intelligent and has always existed.  I have no idea what form the Creator takes.

Quote
In your words you've already structured the issue so that a god is a neccesary answer. for life to be created, it needs a creator.

Well, for life to be created, it needs an intelligent being.

Quote
I'll come at this in 2 ways.

1. The reasoning that, because we don't know the origin of life, or the origin of existence, is not answered in anyway by saying a god did it. What made the god? the usual answer is, it was just there / was always there. This adds nothing, you could equally say the universe was there.

You could, but life was not always there.  In other words, the universe has always existed, but so has the Creator.

Quote
It does nothing to explain a mystery (how did existence come about?) by replacing it by a bigger mystery (how did god come about?).

There is no mystery.  God has always existed.

Quote
2. You are not providing any evidence for the existence of a creator god. You have merely stated that because you do not know any other way life could have come about, god must have done this.

That is not what I am saying.  I am saying given that the most intelligent species creates the most complex objects, we can deduce that life, the most complex object we know of, must have been created by an intelligent being.

I do not really want to go through everything else you wrote.  The thing is, your argument is that life happened out of randomness, just because we do not have proof of a Creator.  That is like saying a computer could just randomly occur in nature.  But we have no reason to believe a computer could just randomly occur in nature, given our experience that all computers were created by an intelligent being.  Your argument seems more magical to me.  That is like saying I should be able to just be walking around and "poof" a car pops up in front of me, all shiny and new, out of randomness.

The argument from both sides really boils down to, "we do not know for sure how life started".

I can respect your side, that the burden of proof is to show that a Creator did create life.  And I would hope that you would respect my side, that says that given our experience, it would seem a Creator must have created life.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2009, 10:36:06 AM by Spideynw »
Logged

fatcat

  • Guest
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #140 on: February 26, 2009, 01:26:08 PM »

So basically saying, you have no proof or evidence to show that there is a creator, but your going to believe there is one just because it seems like a good idea to you?

Why not believe that there are crystals that have healing powers?

Quote
The thing is, your argument is that life happened out of randomness, just because we do not have proof of a Creator.

Incorrect. I tried to address this but semeingly you did not pick up on it. In fact I'm just going to quote what i said verbatim.

Quote
"It is a falsehood to believe atheism to be the opposing view of deism. It is not a choice between either the universe has no reason or explanation, or it was made by a god. Atheism is merely addressing the claim of existence of gods.

I'm not sure where the idea comes about that it is so terrible to accept that there are some things that are impossible to know at the present moment, and why therefore by default, any explanation must be more valid than no explanation."

In other words, I am not claiming that because there is no proof of a creator, then life must have happened at random. I am merely claiming that because there is no proof of a creator, there is no reason to believe one exists. I don't know what happened before the big bang, no one has a good estimation because it is impossible to observe.

The reason we know the universe is billions of years old is because we can see light that has been traveling since the start of the universe, and by knowing the speed of light, we can judge how old the universe must be by seeing how far it has traveled. Since the limit of our observation is set at the start of the big bang, until we improve technology to the point where we can observe or calculate entities further back from that, then it is perfectly reasonable to admit that we don't know what happened before then, or how existence got to that point.

Whether or not the universe came about at random is not the issue, rather it is reasonable to assume that it was not necessary for a creator to have made it since there is not yet any evidence of such a creator.

Ignoring the evidence for Abiogenesis, where amino acids have formed out of inert chemical reactions, and ignoring the fact that evolution can be demonstrated to happen in the macro and micro scale, it is not some 50/50 shot.

It is not more rational to believe life came about at random just because there is no evidence for a creator. Even assuming there were no evidence for how life came about any other way, the correct answer would be "I don't know".

"I don't know" includes the possibility of a creator, if any evidence was ever found, and it also includes the possibility that it was spontaneous, or that there was another explanation.

Again, the idea that "the creator was always there" has no more explaining power than "existence was always there", so it is pointless to believe either to be fact. What it is wise to do is to judge things on evidence. Beliefs on the nature of universe should be representative of that universe, so believing something to be fact without evidence is not only pointless, but it can also be damaging to your ability to assess reality accurately.

Quote
The argument from both sides really boils down to, "we do not know for sure how life started".

That is not the argument from both sides. You're claiming that a creator did it, I am claiming that there is not strong enough evidence for any claim to be justified, other than the fact that it has been shown in laboratories that organic matter can be produced spontaneously by inorganic matter reacting with each other, and that all life up to this point has evolved from lesser.

Even if there was no proof for Abiogenisis, it does nothing to shake the validity of evolution for which it is known to be a fact it occurs. From the fossil records, to DNA evidence, to living examples of bacteria which becomes resistant to antibiotics through mutation and natural selection, to allopatric speciation in fruit flies, to extreme genetic variation in the artificial selection of dogs and other pets.

The fact that all these complex things can be shown to happen without any creator or directed intelligence, but through complex emergent properties of millions of individual interactions, much like the free market, lends much credence to the idea that there does not necessarily have to be a creator of the universe in order for it to be as complex as it is.

Yet even this is a sidetrack and irrelevant. There is no evidence of there being a creator, so there is no reason to believe one exists. There is lots of evidence that complex life can evolve from simple life, and there is some evidence to show that life can come spontaneously from non life.

When it comes to the origin of matter, or physical reality, then the answer is a firm I have no idea. This does not mean I am claiming it happened at random, it just means I am open to the possibility it did until it can be proved or disprove, the same goes for god.

But, since the argument for a creator making the universe requires proof of a creator, and it also requires an explanation for the origin of the creator, then there are less burdens of proof to be met for the idea that it came about at random, or was always there, neither of which I believe are true.

Quote
I can respect your side, that the burden of proof is to show that a Creator did create life.  And I would hope that you would respect my side, that says that given our experience, it would seem a Creator must have created life.

How can you simultaneously claim that there is no evidence that meets the burden of proof for a creator, and yet still claim that from your experience it seems as if there must be one.

What experience is this? Just the fact that to you it seems as if things where created? I've already explained how that argument works just as well for any concept of a deity. I could claim that because things look so designed, that we must be in a computer simulation from another universe, but since there is no evidence to prove such a thing it would be stupid to believe it were so.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2009, 01:53:03 PM by fatcat »
Logged

Spideynw

  • Dead
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #141 on: February 26, 2009, 02:33:23 PM »

It simply amazes me the efforts atheists go to, to convince others there is no God.  How would it improve my life to believe that there was not a Creator?  Would it make me happier, richer, or live longer?
Logged

Dylboz

  • What a deal! A few bucks a month makes me an
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2283
  • Only Anarcho-Capitalism is consistent with the NAP
    • View Profile
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #142 on: February 26, 2009, 02:36:06 PM »

It would make you less inclined to believe in silly things, like God or the Law of Attraction.
Logged
Religion is metaphysical statism. I will be ruled by no man on earth, nor by any god in heaven.

Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

Spideynw

  • Dead
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #143 on: February 26, 2009, 02:38:50 PM »

It would make you less inclined to believe in silly things, like God or the Law of Attraction.

As if the idea that an intelligent being can create things using natural laws is silly.
Logged

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #144 on: February 26, 2009, 02:43:33 PM »

It simply amazes me the efforts atheists go to, to convince others there is no God.  How would it improve my life to believe that there was not a Creator?  Would it make me happier, richer, or live longer?

Do you really judge what is true or not true according to whether it would make you happier, richer, or live longer? 

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact than a drunken man is happier than a sober one"
-George Bernard Shaw

I've never tried to convince someone that there is no god.  What I try to do is convince people that they shouldn't be sure that there is one-- big difference. 
Logged

Dylboz

  • What a deal! A few bucks a month makes me an
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2283
  • Only Anarcho-Capitalism is consistent with the NAP
    • View Profile
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #145 on: February 26, 2009, 02:44:16 PM »

As if the idea that an intelligent being can create things using natural laws is silly.


It is if that "intelligent being" has to exist outside of and prior to all of the matter being created, in violation of those very natural laws. What you describe is a fundamental contradiction. A logical impossibility.
Logged
Religion is metaphysical statism. I will be ruled by no man on earth, nor by any god in heaven.

Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

Spideynw

  • Dead
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #146 on: February 26, 2009, 02:47:09 PM »

As if the idea that an intelligent being can create things using natural laws is silly.


It is if that "intelligent being" has to exist outside of and prior to all of the matter being created, in violation of those very natural laws. What you describe is a fundamental contradiction. A logical impossibility.

Straw man, I never claimed that the Creator existed outside of and/or prior to all of the matter being created.  Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.  So it is very reasonable to believe there could be a creator that has always existed.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2009, 03:05:23 PM by Spideynw »
Logged

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #147 on: February 26, 2009, 02:50:19 PM »

As if the idea that an intelligent being can create things using natural laws is silly.


It is if that "intelligent being" has to exist outside of and prior to all of the matter being created, in violation of those very natural laws. What you describe is a fundamental contradiction. A logical impossibility.

Yeah, I agree, that is such a silly notion to think that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.  How silly to think the Creator has always existed.

Wow, you are quite the king of straw men in this thread.  Dylboz didn't say a thing about whether it's possible for something to always exist or not.

I do find it interesting that you apparently think the Creator is material, though.....
Logged

Spideynw

  • Dead
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #148 on: February 26, 2009, 03:06:34 PM »

As if the idea that an intelligent being can create things using natural laws is silly.


It is if that "intelligent being" has to exist outside of and prior to all of the matter being created, in violation of those very natural laws. What you describe is a fundamental contradiction. A logical impossibility.

Yeah, I agree, that is such a silly notion to think that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.  How silly to think the Creator has always existed.

Wow, you are quite the king of straw men in this thread.  Dylboz didn't say a thing about whether it's possible for something to always exist or not.

I do find it interesting that you apparently think the Creator is material, though.....

I fixed it.

And yes, I do think the Creator is material.  How could an immaterial intelligence do anything?
Logged

Dylboz

  • What a deal! A few bucks a month makes me an
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2283
  • Only Anarcho-Capitalism is consistent with the NAP
    • View Profile
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #149 on: February 26, 2009, 03:13:36 PM »

So this Creator actually didn't create anything, then? Because if he/she/it didn't exist prior to all matter, then it couldn't have created it, because it is part of it. You can't logically create yourself from nothing unless your are supra-material, but that is not your position. If you have always existed, then decide to create something, you obviously existed prior to, and are exclusive from, that creation. The word "creation" implies a starting point. If everything has just always existed, and "God" or "Creator" is your name for that concept, why bother?
« Last Edit: February 26, 2009, 03:35:34 PM by Dylboz »
Logged
Religion is metaphysical statism. I will be ruled by no man on earth, nor by any god in heaven.

Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 16   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Show
| | |-+  Libertarianism and Religion

// ]]>

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 32 queries.