It doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t matter if you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t find them convincing, unless you have convincing refutations for them. And yes there are many other threads dedicated to these evidences; then again, you are the one asserting t God as being Ã¢â‚¬Å“improbableÃ¢â‚¬Â without giving ANY convincing reasoning why He is Ã¢â‚¬Å“improbableÃ¢â‚¬Â. As I maintain across this forum: If you are going to make assertions, it is incumbent upon YOU to provide the evidences to support your assertions. Otherwise you are merely making Ã¢â‚¬Å“faith statementsÃ¢â‚¬Â.
God is improbable because of His necessary complexity. The universe is a staggeringly complex place, SO complex in fact that it is frequently said that it requires a designer.
An omnipotent, omniscient God who is capable of creating such a universe is himself vastly MORE complex than anything he has created. The existence of such a staggeringly complex entity is just so astonishingly unlikely and, due to its complexity fails to answer the very proofs that it is set out to solve, such as the Teleological (if the Universe is so complex that it requires a designer, then God - being MORE complex than the universe - must ALSO require a designer).
ALL of the arguments I presented are logically, rationally, (and yes) even sometimes scientifically sound. The atheists, skeptics, agnostics (or atheists who claim to be agnostic) can do no more than ignore that soundness, or sink to quibbling, prevaricating, equivocating (etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦) to get out of the tight reasoning. If you think you can provide these Ã¢â‚¬Å“flawsÃ¢â‚¬Â you speak of, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m sure youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll find many takers. But, as I said (again), saying itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s so doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make it so.
I could just wiki the criticisms of those proofs, but you'd accuse me of cutting and pasting, which I don't want to do. Suffice it to say that I disagree that those proofs are sound and I am far from alone in that. If you'd like, I'd be happy to open new threads for each of these proofs where we can argue for an against them.
And the atheist has no answers; therefore they live a life of faith that there is no God/Cosmic Initiator/Initial Causer (etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦) continually begging the questions: Where did the universe come from? Where did the Laws that govern the Universe come from? Where did Life Come From? (etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦) And to simply say Ã¢â‚¬Å“It just isÃ¢â‚¬Â, or Ã¢â‚¬Å“itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a semantics problemÃ¢â‚¬Â, is simply living by faith.
What I meant by a semantics problem is the notion that "atheism" is self-contradictory because it requires a belief a "theism". If you prefer, you can call me a 'materialist' - I believe that everything has a material cause and do not accept the notion that a supernatural being exists.
Also, you keep saying the Atheist 'has no answers', yet I provided in my initial post what my answers are. You disagree with them, that's fine. You think there are flaws with them - that's okay too. But it's inaccurate to say that atheists have no answers. We have answers that we think work perfectly well that you disagree with. That's a distinction that I think is important to make.
You Ã¢â‚¬Å“donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see how logic, love, mathematics and thought are metaphysical phenomenon.Ã¢â‚¬Â? Show me one! You cannot! You can show me the effects of these metaphysical phenomena on physical phenomea, but you cannot capture one and paint it green, or photograph it, or physically measure it (like any other physical phenomena) because they are Ã¢â‚¬Å“metaphysicalÃ¢â‚¬Â in nature! Go ahead, disprove my statement (if you dare).
Logic and Mathematics: These are both languages. They are not fundamental principles. Languages are physical things consisting of units (words or numbers) which are combined according to rules (grammar) in order to express or explain physical reality. They do not, and cannot exist outside of or independently of the physical world. Logic only functions because of the already existing physical properties of the universe - and indeed only really works at the levels humans have evolved to operate in. Logic is very bad at explaining quantum physics, for example. Mathematics works there, but it's a more elegant language than logic is. Logic struggles mightily with something like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle or Shroedinger's Cat, yet mathematics can express these quite well.
Love and Thought: These have been fairly conclusively demonstrated to be the result of physical biochemical processes. You have evolved to find certain pheromones and physical attributes desirable. Therefore when you encounter those attributes your body undergoes measurable physiological changes which you interpret as 'love'. Likewise, thoughts are clearly dependent on the biochemical processes of our brains. This is easily demonstrated by the efficacy of psychoactive narcotics. Anyone who's ever taken an anti-depressant or anti-psychotic or illegal hallucinogen or even caffeine can speak to the thought-altering power of chemicals.
Again, you are doing nothing more than making a faith-based statement. I think the better reason youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll accept it, is because you can provide absolutely NO empirical evidence to support Ã¢â‚¬Å“macroÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ or Ã¢â‚¬ËœabiogenesisÃ¢â‚¬â„¢.
Essentially what I'm trying to do is keep the thread more generally about atheism and not get bogged down in debating specific points of evidence for and against. I figured that was the purpose of the other forums and threads, but if you want a piece of evidence for macro-evolution, here you go:
All haplorhine primates share a mutation on the GULO gene which makes us unable to synthesize Vitamin C. Most other mammals and the strepsyrhine primates do not have this mutation and as such don't get scurvy. This indicates, to me, that the haplorhine primates all share a common ancestor. Now, if you want to claim that the haplorhine group consists of a separate baramin, or kind and that the changes within that group are simply adaptations within kind, I suppose that's fair. But it does call into question the special creation of humans.
Abiogenesis is not a Ã¢â‚¬Å“god of the gapsÃ¢â‚¬Â argument. Its an illogical and unscientific proposal that lacks evidence, and credibility.
To make the claim that 'we don't know how Abiogenesis happened therefore it must have been God' is, as I'm sure you're aware an argument from ignorance - which is what the God of the gaps is. Now, claiming that it's illogical and unscientific is another thing. I would disagree. Evidence indicates that all life shares a common ancestor, the evidence being that we all use DNA as the method for information storage in our genes. This leads me to suspect that life only arose once, which would mean that it's difficult, that we shouldn't expect the process to be simple or easy to synthesize. But I disagree that the idea of simple chemical processes leading to more complicated chemical processes (which is basically all life really is) is illogical.
So, morals are relative then?
I don't see how stating that morals are essential for the functioning of society leads to them being relative. In fact, the similarities between the moral structures of societies which never contacted each other speaks to the constancy or morals, not their relativity.
Yes, but since your god is yourself, you are already observing commandments one through five. So, you didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t improve on them at all, you simply shifted them to yourself. ... . Therefore, you didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t improve it at all, you simply personalized it.
I don't see how I make my god myself. I don't worship myself, or ascribe special status to myself, or claim that I should be worshipped before any others. In fact, the very first of my 'new' commandments is the opposite, others should be considered first.
ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s because slavery is of man (due to the fall of man), this in no way proves God approves or condones of slavery so you failed to provide evidence for your assertion once again This is like my asserting that since you havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t personally physically gone to places in the world today and stopped the slave trade that you yourself condone and approve of slavery today! Now, do I believe you condone slavery? NoÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ But then again, I may be wrong, but I havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t accused you unjustly either!
Doesn't God very clearly describe things which are 'of man' that he is opposed to, that he considers 'abominations' in his revealed scripture? The omission of slavery in those is the same thing as condoning it.
Also, I make no claim to being the moral authority of the universe, therefore my not actively trying to stop slavery is different from God's as he DOES claim to be the moral authority of all creation.
Once again, did God do this, or did man?
It was the actions of a man who is held up in the scripture of God as being a good and noble example of how a person should live. This is inconsistent with those scriptures being a worthwhile basis for morality.
IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll just continue to point out the flaws in your argumentation, and youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll learn from it, or you wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t. This isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t my first rodeo, and you arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t the first atheist to come here with the copy-and- paste arguments from other atheist forums, and try to pass them off here.
And I will respond in kind, as I don't see your arguments as being without flaws. I also would like to say that, while I'm sure you've seen many of my points before, I'm not actually copying and pasting them and I hope I'm not giving that impression. I'm actually taking the time to think about what I believe and where I think the flaws in your arguments in support of the existence of God are.