gdp's Comments

The {e}Atheist : The concept of God and evil are incompatible

Sat, 9 Feb 2013 01:02:00 +0000

Unnecessary suffering is only a logical problem from the theistic point of view. Which is why people probably bring it up...... seeing as you are a theist. There is no confusion about suffering from an evolutionary point of view. Which is why the atheist worldview is more consistent with reality. It requires mental gymnastics to try and logically explain why an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent creator, created a world where people suffer unnecessarily. If you are not familiar with what unnecessary suffering is; I would be glad to assist with informing you. P.S sorry for the long delay in my response.

The {e}Atheist : Creationism proofs refuted

Tue, 13 Jul 2010 03:44:00 +0000

Thanks for the info on the spell check, however when i get rolling on a train of thought i have the habit of screwing up several spellings in my haste. Hopefully the meaning isn't lost by being distracted with grammar, though from examining your comment, it appears it was. I suspect you find me to be arrogant for stating my opinions about the origin of the universe. Thank you for assuming that these are conclusions are based on my own logical deduction, very flattering, though you should relieved to know that I am only the middle man reformatting existing concepts of natural origins. I simply am trying to show the inconsistencies in the creationist's clever word-play on scientific matters. Besides just popping in to tell me that i am arrogant, perhaps you'd add something worth thinking about to the conversation. Maybe instead of just disagreeing, you could offer some points of contention, or perhaps a line of logic that makes more sense than an EXPLANATION by natural means.

The {e}Atheist : Biblical Giant Ears.

Mon, 5 Jul 2010 04:13:10 +0000

Thank you ;)

The {e}Atheist : The concept of God and evil are incompatible

Tue, 1 Jun 2010 13:47:55 +0000

You are too funny about the dentist! so true...... I think the argument i recently sent you may have over-lapped into this area of discussion. But when we finish discussing morality, we can certainly pick-up on any topic you'd like. As always, thanks for your comments!

The {e}Atheist : Creationism proofs refuted

Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:17:05 +0000

Caveman, What show was that i wonder.......... Well, i'm no physicist, but allow me to explain, as i understand it. Mass and energy are the same. Remember Einstein's famous equation? E=mc2.... Energy equals mass x the speed of light squared. What this means is that mass and energy are the same thing as far as the laws of thermodynamics are concerned. Maybe you could give a value to the amount of mass in the universe, like "1000" and the amount of energy at "500", totaling ="1500", this number remains constant, while the number of mass or energy may be in flux, the sum of the two remains constant. However, i am not sure how gravity plays into all that math, but i do know this. A force is a term that we give to describe dynamic change in an objects motion. If i throw a ball, and no other force acts on it, then it should continue to travel in a straight path infinitely. Any thing that causes change in its path of motion is called a force. Gravity warps space and simply changes the path of objects in motion that pass through that space. LIke a putting green that warps toward the hole. You may hit the ball past it, not directly at the hole, but the slope will seem to "pull" the ball toward the hole. Now i realize that I'm using a gravity analogy to describe gravity, but a 2 dimensional model is the best way to explain warping of space that is essentially a 3D event. Gravity is a force, but really, in context it is a word that describes what is happening to space. Would you call a hill or a slope an unrelenting force? Implying that it takes a sufficient sustained energy to keep the hill sloped, as if something was constantly trying to make it return to flatness, and only constant energy could keep it distorted and curved? I don't think that is an accurate model for describing what gravity is and does. Thats the best i can do for you caveman, hope that helps. On a closing note, i don't think the universe would be possible without gravity, it is not something that can be taken away or added after the fact. Or leaked in, I'm not even sure what that would mean, feel free to elaborate on what the universe would be without gravity, and how it could be "leaked" in and/or how a new characteristic of the universe could be added after the fact. One more thing: The "laws of thermodynamics" have been evaluated for many many many years, and validated through many many many experiments, i trust that if there is any inconsistency in the theorys/laws/evidence behind any scientific claim it will be identified and corrected according to the newest and most consistent data. So the far though, the overwhelming consensus is that the laws of thermodynamics are an accurate model for explaining how the universe and its physics work. Thanks for the comment Caveman.

The {e}Atheist : Response to Rae

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 03:26:07 +0000

Welcome back Rae, yes i'm definitely in! I though you were bored with me. :) Ya, i'll gladly answer some questions for you. It's rare to communicate so well with someone who has an opposing point of view. Thanks again for all your thoughts on the subject, i respect your position as well. How would you like to proceed? You can email me if you like, or i can start a new post here on my blog on the subject of your choice.

The {e}Atheist : Response to Rae

Tue, 23 Mar 2010 23:15:42 +0000

Skaggz, No i think i understand what your trying to express: The virtue of Blind Faith that is so proudly supported by many religious persons. Blind Faith is practiced by many. Accepting an idea in the face of conflicting evidence is considered being a good Christian. What i am trying to express to you, is that we should be skeptical of embracing a virtue that in any other situation is not valid, and in many situations is down right irrational or dangerous. Remember that what you're talking about is belief without justification. Also remember that it was belief without justification that makes people strap bombs on and walk into crowded buildings. I don't mean to compare you to a terrorist skaggz, but honestly if we ignore evidence, how is one to make rational decisions about what to believe. How can you even choose Christianity over Islam or Buddism if you don't factor in some evidence? I think we will most likely agree to disagree. All i can ask is that you consider the things i have said, blind faith is either all good or not good at all. If it only occasionally good, then we must use some evidence to decide when to use it and when not too. Such a scenario, would be self-defeating. It would be like saying i use evidence to decide when to use blind faith.

The {e}Atheist : Response to Rae

Tue, 23 Mar 2010 21:59:20 +0000

Skaggz, I really feel that in this situation its not just a lack of evidence for, it is an over abundance of evidence against. Remember, that as i have pointed out: When the claim is that a cause is a supernatural one, then evidence for a natural explanation is evidence against a supernatural one. Now, this is new to me, you are claiming that the abundance of evidence against Gods existence is really evidence for? In what other area of life is this acceptable skaggz? IF there were a pile of evidence leading you to believe that you cannot fly, would you say: "this is really evidence for my ability to fly, because if god didn't allow me to chose what i believe then i would not have free will." ;;and therefore you would jump off a building? This thought process is inconsistent with every other area of life, everything you believe is based on evidence in favor of an idea, why does belief in God receive special exception? Now if you are arguing that what the bible means when it states 'God gave us free will', that it only applies to belief in him, i would have to disagree as well, and you would be hard pressed to find a group of Christians to support that concept. How can your sun/heat analogy not disprove the biblical concept of free will, but accepting evidence for God does? The free will supposedly given by God lies in our choice of actions. I cannot deny that i exist, i think therefore i am, therefore i have no biblical free will? If that is the case, i would say such a "forced belief " would be evidence against the WORD OF GOD, which states that God gave us free will. I would argue that our free will, from the theist perspective, means freedom in action. Thank you for your comments Skaggz. I'm looking forward to your reply.

The {e}Atheist : Response to Rae

Tue, 23 Mar 2010 21:26:22 +0000

Skaggz, I don't think there is correlation between changes and beginnings. I think your point that a thing cannot exist in two separate states at once is valid, however you did use "time-terminology" to prove that time exist. If i say "How can you prove time exist?" you cannot respond by saying "because a thing cannot be in two different states at the same time." It is improper to use term you are defining, in the definition. I think what your statement proves is that time is linear, and moves forward. Also i think you are confusing eternal with infinite. A thing can be unchanged forever and be called eternal, and thing can change forever and be called infinite. Again i would recommend that you read through the replies and comments between Rae and I, if you still object or need clarification, i will gladly explain as best as i am able.

The {e}Atheist : Response to Rae

Tue, 23 Mar 2010 21:11:08 +0000

Skaggz, Thank you for your kind words. However i think i have addressed the infinite loop scenario. And the conclusion between myself and Rae, is that an infinite loop is a very probable scenario based on the observed natural progression of cause and effect. I am stating, and have been stating, if you read through all these replies between Rae and myself, i think you will find that we have more reason to assume there was no beginning than to assume there was. I would like to point out that i know where you are coming from, i have struggled to understand what it means to not have a beginning. But ultimately one must show why a series of cause and effects MUST have a beginning. Look at number analogy i presented to Rae, i don't think i can present my argument any better than that.

The {e}Atheist : Response to Rae

Sat, 6 Mar 2010 17:06:28 +0000

Rick, Sounds like you have quite the interesting experiences. As i have replied on your blog, and again you have not shown arguments that prove how your experiences are specific to a Christian God and not just coincidences that are typical of all religions. These prophecies and divine interventions are characteristic of just about every scripture and religion out there. Thats why argument from personal experience is so quickly disregarded by educated persons who argue about the proof of god. You should know that the Christian God is very jealous and specific about his nature. Other gods are false, Other names for God are not acceptable and Other paths do not lead to salvation. I do not wish do Debate this with you here Rick. I thought you might have some argument to support your confidence, and prove that your "relationship" with jesus is true and not just a fabrication in your mind. The arguments I've posted here in reply to Rae should justify my opinions on this matter. The effects of supernatural causes should appear as un-caused causes to us. There should be no explanations like "people who worship false religions experience the same apparent prophecy and divine intervention as people who worship the true God". Again because religious experience is so subjective to the individual and because it is widely reported by various religions as well as accounted by psychedelic drug use, argument by personal experience is not a strong point for proof of God.. I thank you for your comments, but i do not wish to continue when we are making no progress. Good luck to you and your blog.

The {e}Atheist : Response to Rae

Sat, 6 Mar 2010 16:21:43 +0000

If you agree so far, (I suspect you don’t…) then the only way out is to argue that God makes things appear to have natural causes, but really he’s behind it. You have already touched on this topic so I will reply to your “God could have created an infinite line of causes”- concept. You may argue such a statement is consistent with reality and is a valid possibility and to your seeming advantage, there is no way to disprove such a statement. But ultimately, what a statement like that really means is this: There is no observable evidence or implied evidence for supernatural causes. IF God has the ability to create in a way that leaves no evidence of his actions, that means he did so without leaving any implied evidence either. As I’ve shown in this reply already, implied evidence is requirement to form a valid cognitive deduction. If one makes the statement that when God created all of existence, he did so in a way which cannot be provable either by implied or direct evidence. One is stating that their belief in the God the Creator Theory is unfounded and not supportable even by some manner of cognitive deduction, because again, cognitive deduction requires at minimum, implied evidence. In conclusion, I feel I’ve shown what is required to lend credibility to a supernatural explanation. I also feel like the natural creation theories, which are based on observable, measureable and documentable effects, provide more than enough evidence against any un-caused cause. If the beginning of existence had an un-caused cause the attempts to understand the effect data would repeatedly turn up as a giant question mark. Every theory would turn up invalid, incompatible and in stark contradiction with the effect data. There would be no correlations and every natural explanation would fall short even in theory. This as you know is not what we find. There are many coherent theories, and billions of years of natural cause and natural effect explanations, a 14 billion year+ pattern…..1,2,1,2…., implied evidences and observed, all pointing towards a natural progression. The whole of your argument is resting on the theory that an un-caused cause is the root of all existence. Confirmation of which, is achieved by disproving all natural explanations. Remember any implied evidence for a natural explanation is evidence directly inconsistent with a supernatural cause explanation. Evidence for an un-caused cause is found by way of a lack of implied or observed evidence. I suspect you’ll have some disagreements with my line of thought, however, as I said before, I’ll leave the final word on this topic to you Rae, thank you and I look forward to our next topic.

The {e}Atheist : Response to Rae

Sat, 6 Mar 2010 16:21:19 +0000

Rae, "......our science and our technology are designed only to work within nature". Statements like this make me wonder if you are knowingly implying that there was a choice in the "design", of science or technology. As if all scientist have "chosen" to create technology that can only observe, measure and document things in this existence. The assumption that there are any alternatives to natural causes, the assumption that there are things that operate in a medium that is other than this existence, is a gross assumption that defines why I am an atheist. I refuse to make this assumption without some evidence leading me. There is no choice for science either, all observable, measurable and documentable things operate in this medium we call existence. Here is my closing argument: We have both agreed that there is no way to observe, measure, document evidence or direct proof of supernatural causes. We can only document the effects of a supernatural cause. The effect is where we find implied evidence. Please note that an observed cause cannot be labeled as implied evidence, is becomes direct evidence. Again we have concluded that all evidences for Creation by God Theory are implied only. Therefore one must observe measure or document ONLY THE EFFECTS of a supernatural event in order to obtain implied evidence. In regard to a supernatural event THE CAUSE CANNOT BE OBSERVED, ONLY IMPLIED, these last two sentences are important Rae that's why they are repeated and written in caps, read ‘em again if you will...... From our perspective; where all observable, measureable and documentable things operate in the same existence, we can make an assumption: If science were not restricted by time or technology, all implied natural causes are potentially observable, measurable or documentable. If science were not restricted by time or technology ALL implied supernatural causes would remain un-observable, etc, etc… and the only proof of the event actually occurring is through observing, documenting or measuring an apparent cause UN-CAUSED CAUSE. Once more: An effect from a supernatural cause must appear to us as an un-caused cause. I think we can both agree that all conclusions resulting from cognitive deductions are based on causes which have some observable, measurable or documentable effects. (There must at least be measureable effects, in order to conclude anything.) By this definition it would appear that both a supernatural cause and a natural cause meet the criteria for a forming a valid conclusion based on cognition and effects. So, now I ask: How does one conclude that a cause is a supernatural one or a natural? I feel that a supernatural event could be proven to exist if the effect of the event can be proven to have no natural cause. (Hopefully we are in agreement that at least in theory such things can be determined.) This must be the criteria met in order for an effect to be confirmed as an “un-caused cause.” More specifically, I feel that the only way that one PROVES that an effect is really an un-caused cause is by eliminating all alternative natural cause explanations. To repeat this concept with different terminology: The way to prove that an effect is the result of a supernatural cause is to prove that there are no observable, measurable or documentable causes that are consistent with the effect data. I’ll explain: Elimination of all natural alternatives are REQUIRED logically, because ANY natural explanation which is consistent with the effect data means a implied cause has been measured, observed or documented in some form. The way that an “un-caused cause” remains consistent with the evidence…. is by the lack of ANY cause evidence. ANY evidence supporting a natural cause would be inconsistent with a supernatural cause explanation. A true supernatural cause would have no natural evidence or explanations. For a supernatural cause to appear consistent with the truth, one would consistently find that ALL natural explanations are inconsistent.

The {e}Atheist : Atheist Charity

Thu, 4 Mar 2010 21:08:31 +0000

Well Rob,__It all depends on what you define as atheist. Technically "A" means without, "theist" obviously you know the meaning of that. "A" prior to terms like Agnostic, Nogstic meaning knowledge, include the "A" and you have a term that means without knowledge. I feel that atheist is a term that shouldn't really exist. We don't have words for non-doctors, or non-carpenters. No one would ever references themselves as a non-lawyer when asked about their occupation. So anyway an organization that is not affiliated with religion is "essentially" (please note i said essentially in my post as well) an atheist organization. We're talking semantics here and it's really irrelavent to the topic of the post anyhow. Thanks for your comment, please reply back if you wish to discuss this further.

The {e}Atheist : Response to Rae

Wed, 3 Mar 2010 16:26:35 +0000

It seems that the abundance of evidence that you claim points to proof of Gods work is not in directly observable events. This is what i understand your position to be: The proof is found in the complexity and organization which you find to be Too perfect for coincidence, the evidence seems to be implied. You see the puppets move in a manner that is too perfect for chance and you conclude that there must be strings. You make statements like "Laws point to a law maker" and "How did it all get here?" , again even if i was stumped by those questions, my lack of an explanation would just support evidences are implied, and are not observable. I will answer your questions by the way, i just want to make sure i understand you correctly. I know that we can't physically observe electrons, and quarks, or black holes or many things that scientists accept as truths. I feel like there is a difference between the implied evidence for creation by God and implied evidence for black holes, electrons and such. I feel that if we had a strong enough microscope a quark could actually be observed, or if there were a spaceship of the correct capability we could observe a black hole pulling in matter. Yet no technology could allow us to observe Gods work, no microscope could allow us to watch God writing genetic information. so all proofs and evidences are entirely based on a philosophical or cognitive deduction like math. Are you in agreement that the only evidence for Creation or Design by God is implied evidence and is not the same as the observed and implied evidence that explains natural events?

The {e}Atheist : Response to Rae

Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:36:49 +0000

Very well Rae, I have a few more thoughts and then perhaps we shall just agree to disagree, its quite possible that neither of us have the resources to convince the other completely. Again Rae, i am very much thankful for your participation in this discussion. I have enjoyed myself greatly, and i hope you have as well. In case i haven't said so yet, i do respect your opinions, and don't think there are very many blogs out there where such a respectful debate between an atheist and a Christian have taken place. So thank you for your respectful debate.__First let me start with a correction on my behalf: I've re-read your replies and realized that you did not say that matter sprang form nothingness, i apologize. Still, i think my position and the course of this debate has not changed. Whatever the cause of the explosion of existing matter that we call our universe, i think it was natural. I've heard an argument that the big bang must be caused by a being that exist outside of physics because otherwise the big bang was in violation of the laws of physics, implying that matter was created in that instant,,, and matter cannot be created, and i assumed that was the argument you were representing. Anyhow i think were still on the same page as far as this debate goes, so i shall continue. I will ask for clarification of your position in this reply. To avoid confusion i will wait until you confirm your position, before i reply with my closing argument and leave you with the final word on this topic. After which i would love to continue on any subject of your choice, let me know the topic and i will start a new post/topic thread and we can start digging into something more philosophical. Would you care to participate further after this? Please see the next comment for the clarification i am asking for.

The {e}Atheist : Response to Rae

Mon, 1 Mar 2010 17:36:23 +0000

Rae, i understand your position, But if there is not some evidence to support it, then i am arguing that it is inconsistent to believe in it. I think perhaps you are putting to much value on the word possibility. Sure, God, if he exists, could create an infinite chain, that is one possibility, but that does not mean it is probable. Correct me if im wrong, but all of the conclusions we have reached through this debate have led me to feel like there is no evidence to support such a claim. Simply stating that its possible is not a reason to believe it is likely to be true. I've stated examples in this debate, like my satellite scenario, which show how we do not believe in something based on it being just a possibility. In all other area's of life, except with regard to religious faith, we demand some evidence for belief. So i am asking, what is the evidence to show that your theory of God the creator, is more than just a possibility. Simply being "not inconsistent with" is not reason to accept it as a possibility over the overwhelming evidence supporting natural causes. We can put a number to possibility, being crushed by a satellite as you step out of your house might be 1 in a billion, but a possibility none the less. I put the theory of creation by a God at a similar number, due to the lack of evidence to support such a notion. IT does not matter which way you speculate the universe was created: infinite or instantly out of nothing. You need some kind of reason in the form of evidence to argue that a GOD is behind it. Other wise it is just a possibility. Evidence turns possibility into probability. Your idea that god was the un-caused cause was based on the dilema of matter coming into existence on its own. We have shown that is not likely the way things happened. What is your basis for speculating that god created an infinite line of causes? If you wish to agrue that it is more possible than any other 1 in a billion idea, like my invisible super force theory, offer some evidence or agrument. I really feel like our debate has shown that a natural cause progression has a stronger possibility for truth, and is moving beyond just a possibility, into the realm of being a strong probability.

The {e}Atheist : Religion in Politics

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 02:28:02 +0000

Rick, Thanks for your comments. I strongly disagree that religious faith makes anyone more moral. Please read my post Morality Does not come from God Please leave a comment there and we can talk about morality and religious faith. As far as the notion that America was founded for religious people by religious people, i don't disagree. However, many other bad ideas like slavery and women as second class citizens, where also founding ideas that were acceptable and we have since corrected ourselves. The concept that "America was founded on religion therefore religion is a good thing" is not a very valid argument in my opinion. If you would like to discuss that topic, please feel free to comment here. Although i think you should visit my other post first so we are both on the same page. Thanks Rick, i look forward to your reply.

Atheist Revolution : Christians are Praying for You

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:58:55 +0000

If I know someone is a Christian, and they know I'm an atheist: i am not offended if they tell me that they are praying for me. In fact, its exactly what i would expect them to say. It is consistent with their beliefs. (I find consistency far more appealing in a belief system, even if i don't agree with it.) I don't find such comments surprising or ill-intended at all. Nor are my comments or attempts to inform them of a similar good-intent on my behalf: That I hope they realize the error of their beliefs.

The {e}Atheist : Morality does not come from God

Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:31:31 +0000

Daisy, On second review of your comment i found another possibility for your meaning: Perhaps you were implying that some altruism existed before religion, and when religion came about, the altruism spread faster. Again two choices (1) god introduced it (2) man introduced it 1. God did it My response: If your saying that altruism existed before god introduced religion, then i would argue that preexisting altruism could have evolved to a higher level of morality on its own without gods interference. 2. Man did it. My response: As i argued in the previous reply to your comment, if man did it, then it happened because of altruistic evolution. However i think we would just be disagreeing on terminology here. You say "religion" encouraged altruism and morality, i say "human culture". Human culture is inevitably something that evolved and only exist because it served some advantage in surviving. I don't believe that religion is true or supernaturally inspired. My argument is that if a trait exists in humans today, then evolution can explain it how it got there. Thus morality can be explained by evolution. Now if you would like to break it into smaller steps then i think we might still be able to agree. 1.Altruism evolved in lower animals and therefore was present in in genes as humans evolved. 2. Humans evolved culture which allowed altruism to "spread", 3. Perhaps a by-product of the spread of altruistic culture was religion. I certainly think we can both conclude that one is the by-product of the other. My position is that evolution and altruism are the primary mechanisms, and religion is the by-product of them. Looking forward to your replies, and if we resolve these, i will gladly comment on your other questions.