The evidence against religon won with just one argument until...

Zillah

PDN wrote:

Tool use is not an exclusively human trait.

Thats because we're not exclusively "human". The divisions between species are abitrary tools, nothing more. Often we find a very useful point at which to draw a line, like between people and cats. But often there is massive debate amongst experts whether many existing lines should be drawn at all, or where to draw it, or for what reasons to draw it. So yeah, Chimps use tools, much in the same way our very distant ancestors probably did.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Well that is one of the points of evolution, there is no "line"

A non-human did not give birth a human. It is not black and white, it is a long shade of gray.

Not so. Imagine you have a piece of card showing many gradients, or shades of grey between black (on the left hand side) and white (on the right hand side). You may argue at which shade one can accurately describe a colour as being a shade of white - but you have to draw the line somewhere. There must, by definition, be a point at which the colour changes from 'not-white' to something that can be described as 'white'. That colour is the first shade of white in the sequence.

This would be much clearer is any of the great apes that were very close to humans were still around. There is evidence that homo-neanderthals were quite intelligent and had language and mated with humans.

Well i understand that they still engage in similar practices in Athlone. While rather icky it doesn't necessarily imply that the people of Athlone are less than human or that the sheep in Athlone are even partly human.

Think of it like this, if you are climbing a hill at what point do you say we are on the hill and what point do you say we are not on the hill. Its easy to pick some where where you you are certain you are on the hill (the top say) or some where were are you are not (4 miles away), but while you are walking up the hill can you say "here I'm not, one step more I am"

A very misleading argument by analogy. What you perceive while you were climbing the hill is not the issue. Let us say that a cartographer is observing you through a telescope as you climb the hill. The cartographer has determined a point at which the hill begins. As you reach that point he says, "They have just taken their first step onto the hill." Now, it doesn't matter where the point is that he has determined. it may be at 100 feet or at 1000 feet - either way, out of all the steps you take, one of them, of necessity, was your first step on the hill.

Equally, it doesn't matter what criteria you use to define humanity. Let's say, for example, it is possessing a certain percentage of genes and other biological characteristics. There was a point in time when no creature had reached that point. The first creature that did reach that point was, by definition, the first human. It doesn't matter if that creature subsequently mates with chimpanzees, hominoids, or giraffes (would inventing a ladder be an exclusively human characteristic?) - it is still the first human.

I have tons of evidence in the fossil record that they were not placed

No you don't. You have no evidence that excludes the possibility of God placing humans on the earth through a process of evolution.

Well normally its the other way around PDN. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I am God. Prove to me I'm not.

I would imagine most people here would instead say "Prove you are"

This is more a Pavlovian slabber than a serious attempt at debate.

I refer you to my post where I recap how we got to this point. You are the one who has made the extraordinary claim. You claimed that "science tells us" that God did not make the earth. Therefore it is up to you to produce extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary claim.

I, however, am simply making the very ordinary claim that science neither tells us that God made the earth, nor that he didn't make it. I think any impartial reader would see that your claim is much more extraordinary than mine - therefore the burden of proof rests with you.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Whoa! You're at it again - dancing around to evade the consequences of your own statements. Let's recap what has happened so far.

1. I quoted Tigay, not because I agree with him, but in response to your request for me to provide evidence that there are both liberal and evangelical biblical scholars who, on the basis of evidence, believe the Genesis creation accounts to be intended as metaphorical rather than scientifically accurate. This was in response to your erroneous statement that an academic consensus existed on the matter.

2. You took exception to Tigay's statement, among other things, that one of the true intentions of the author(s) of Genesis was the truth that God created the earth. Your response to this was "the problem of course is that science tells us that that isn't true."

3. Since you have now made the claim that "science tells us" that God did not make the earth, I am entitled to ask you for proof or evidence. Your argument so far appears to be that there is no evidence that God did create the earth.

4. Even a blind half-wit on drugs should be able to grasp the difference between "There is no proof or evidence that X is true" and "There is proof or evidence that X is not true." All the waffling and eye-rolling icons in the world will not mask that essential distinction.

I personally do not believe that there is definitive evidence that God did not create the earth. Other atheist posters have, in other threads, have indicated that such evidence does not exist. You, however, have made the extraordinary claim that "science tells us" (implying evidence) that God did not make the earth.

Earlier in this thread you asked me to produce evidence to support a claim I made. I provided you with evidence. Therefore I will ask you again. What evidence or proof can you produce to support your claim that "science tells us" that God did not make the earth?

Yes. Curiously, you will find it very difficult to persuade an atheist that the claim "God made the Earth" is not an extraordinary claim. Viewed in the light of human history, however, the claim is by no means extraordinary, at least for a locally variable value of God.

I'm not sure whether all of us appreciate just how extraordinary the claim "we can prove God did not create the Earth" really is. Even now, the number of people who would agree that "God made the Earth" is neither literally nor metaphorically true is still very small, compared even to smaller churches.

Personally, I don't think science either does, or can, prove that the Earth was not made by some God or other - the claim is not falsifiable, and therefore cannot be tested scientifically. What we can say is that science offers an origin for the Earth, and the Universe, that does not require any form of supernatural intervention.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Zillah wrote:

Thats because we're not exclusively "human". The divisions between species are abitrary tools, nothing more. Often we find a very useful point at which to draw a line, like between people and cats. But often there is massive debate amongst experts whether many existing lines should be drawn at all, or where to draw it, or for what reasons to draw it. So yeah, Chimps use tools, much in the same way our very distant ancestors probably did.

If any poster thinks that a line should not be drawn between animals and humans then they should declare themselves and I will respect their right to hold such views (even though I personally disagree with them). However, I will reserve the right to call them out as a dishonest hypocrite every time they refer to 'humans' or 'animals' in posts and use those terms as if they possessed any meaning.

I do not dispute the fact that the divisions between species are arbitrary tools. However, we can still define whether a creature falls within the scope of that arbitrary line or not. Therefore there was a first human. To deny this self-evident fact, in my opinion, is to assert a logical impossibility.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

I'm afraid I'm not quite up on my window design so I don't actually know what a bow window is.

I shouldn't imagine that would be a hindrance to you arguing about bow windows.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Not so. Imagine you have a piece of card showing many gradients, or shades of grey between black (on the left hand side) and white (on the right hand side). You may argue at which shade one can accurately describe a colour as being a shade of white - but you have to draw the line somewhere. There must, by definition, be a point at which the colour changes from 'not-white' to something that can be described as 'white'. That colour is the first shade of white in the sequence.

Mmm...no. The analogy falls down on its linearity. There might be a couple of hundred characteristics that define 'humanity'. If generation N of a particular family has 90 of these characteristics, there is no guarantee that generation N+1 will have 91. The immediately obvious problem is that generation N will have to mate with someone, and that that someone may have only 87 'human' characteristics, some of them different. Generation N+1 may therefore be less human than one of their parents.

Having said that, we can certainly try to discriminate in the case of one particular individual, but even there, for anyone less than 'fully human', the point will still be arguable - and arguable even for someone who has 100% of the 'human' characteristics, since some of those characteristics will be arguable themselves.

The argument that there must have been a first 'fully human' individual has, as you say, no logical counter-argument, for any given definition of 'fully human'. However, the term is practically meaningless, because their mate and children may not qualify, and almost certainly did not, statistically speaking - and any definition of 'fully human' is open to challenge.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Mad Hatter

PDN wrote:

Not so. Imagine you have a piece of card showing many gradients, or shades of grey between black (on the left hand side) and white (on the right hand side). You may argue at which shade one can accurately describe a colour as being a shade of white - but you have to draw the line somewhere. There must, by definition, be a point at which the colour changes from 'not-white' to something that can be described as 'white'. That colour is the first shade of white in the sequence.

Care to pinpoint it?

The first point is that it's extremely difficult to find the exact point where this image becomes black or coloured. Far more so with evolution, where the lines are infinitely more complex, and we have different human-like species cropping up all over the world.

The second is that our monitors will probably show slightly different images in terms of the gradient. So even if you think you've found it, I (or someone else) might disagree. Likewise with evolution, different perspectives on what makes humanity human will lead to different answers on what the first human was - so I don't think we can categorically say that there was one.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

The argument that there must have been a first 'fully human' individual has, as you say, no logical counter-argument, for any given definition of 'fully human'. However, the term is practically meaningless, because their mate and children may not qualify, and almost certainly did not, statistically speaking - and any definition of 'fully human' is open to challenge.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The problem, of course, is that 'statistically speaking' simply means that something is extremely unlikely in the ordinary course of events. If you allow for divine intervention, however, statistical improbability becomes a very poor evidence for saying that something did not happen.

Now, consider the context of this thread. The OP was trying to disprove the existence of the biblical God. Now, in that context, we are discussing the possibility of a first couple (something that Wicknight claims "science says" did not exist). It would appear therefore that we have now reached the following form of argument:

1. The biblical God does not exist.
2. Since the biblical God does not exist, neither do miracles occur.
3. Since miracles do not occur, therefore the fact that something is highly improbable statistically is sufficient evidence to assert that thing is impossible.
4. The existence of a first couple is highly improbable statistically, therefore we conclude it is impossible.
5. This proves that the biblical God does not exist.

Now, my brain is not numb in the slightest (probably because, due to my Christian values, I am a tolerant individual). However, I do think this reasoning is slightly circular.

PDN

The Mad Hatter wrote:

Care to pinpoint it?

The first point is that it's extremely difficult to find the exact point where this image becomes black or coloured. Far more so with evolution, where the lines are infinitely more complex, and we have different human-like species cropping up all over the world.

The second is that our monitors will probably show slightly different images in terms of the gradient. So even if you think you've found it, I (or someone else) might disagree. Likewise with evolution, different perspectives on what makes humanity human will lead to different answers on what the first human was - so I don't think we can categorically say that there was one.

Whether I could pinpoint it or not is immaterial. Even if 1000 people pinpointed 1000 different points - each point would still, according to that taxonomy, be the point where white begins.

Of course, if God created humankind (whether by evolution or any other process) then God would be perfectly to entitled to define what is human and what is not human.

Now, you may respond by arguing that God does not exist, but then that becomes another circular argument:

1. The biblical God does not exist.
2. Therefore God could not define what is human.
3. Therefore it is impossible to define 'human' (let's ignore the leap of logic there since I'm having more fun concentrating on the hilarity of the circularity).
4. Therefore there was no 'first human couple'
5. Therefore the biblical God does not exist.

Again, may I remind you that I have nowhere argued in this thread that God does exist. I am simply having a lot of fun exploring the weaknesses of the arguments that claim to have evidence for his non-existence.

Zillah

PDN wrote:

If any poster thinks that a line should not be drawn between animals and humans then they should declare themselves

Consider this me not declaring such. Like I said, its a useful tool, but an arbitrary one.

Therefore there was a first human. To deny this self-evident fact, in my opinion, is to assert a logical impossibility.

Your opinion is wrong. There cannot be a first human, because the term "human" is not a strict definition. Its a convenient way of describing a whole bunch of similar genotypes/phenotypes. If a baby was born that was riddled with genetic mutations that made it very different from its parents we'd probably still call it human.

As we go further and further back in time our ancestors become less and less like the genetic group we call humans today, but at no one point can you say when it leaves that group, because the group by defintion has no such line to cross.

To explain why your argument is wrong, allow me to use a metaphor:

We have a man standing in a field. We say there's a circle around him, but we won't define where exactly the circle lies. We have a rough idea, but any one person's opinion on where the circle is could be ten or twenty feet bigger or smaller than the next person. No one opinion is right, we just agree upon the general scale of the circle.

Then, the man starts walking away from his original position. You are insisting that we must be able to pinpoint the moment he leaves the circle.

PDN

Zillah wrote:

Consider this me not declaring such. Like I said, its a useful tool, but an arbitrary one.



Your opinion is wrong. There cannot be a first human, because the term "human" is not a strict definition. Its a convenient way of describing a whole bunch of similar genotypes/phenotypes. If a baby was born that was riddled with genetic mutations that made it very different from its parents we'd probably still call it human.

As we go further and further back in time our ancestors become less and less like the genetic group we call humans today, but at no one point can you say when it leaves that group, because the group by defintion has no such line to cross.

To explain why your argument is wrong, allow me to use a metaphor:

We have a man standing in a field. We say there's a circle around him, but we won't define where exactly the circle lies. We have a rough idea, but any one person's opinion on where the circle is could be ten or twenty feet bigger or smaller than the next person. No one opinion is right, we just agree upon the general scale of the circle.

Then, the man starts walking away from his original position. You are insisting that we must be able to pinpoint the moment he leaves the circle.

I think the girl in the OP would need to be very blonde (and very drunk) to find that particular argument from analogy in any way convincing.

Our concept of humanity may be arbitrary but it is not undefined. Otherwise you may as well argue that a prawn is human.

Once you make a definition as to what is human then it becomes logically unavoidable that the first creature to match that definition is, according to our definition, the first human.

Zillah

PDN wrote:

Once you make a definition as to what is human...

We haven't, thats where your position falls down.

We have no straight forward definition, we have a remarkably loose set of criteria that change with time and personal preference. Imagine you have a huge and complex building. We take out a brick...do you still consider it the same building? Of course you do. How many bricks do you have to take out before it stops being the building you know? A hundred different people will have dozens of different answers as to when it stops being the same building. We haven't got a hard and fast definition for what that building is, its a far more ambiguous notion. If we wanted to make such a definition then we have to accept that its not the same building any more as soon as a single brick is taken out.

In the exact same fashion, if we were to make such a strict definition of what a human being is, then there'd be...well, one human being, ever. His children don't even meet the criteria.

Sorry to keep using metaphors by the way, but you don't seem to be getting the real world version, I find metaphors help people understand stuff like this.

The Mad Hatter

PDN wrote:

Whether I could pinpoint it or not is immaterial. Even if 1000 people pinpointed 1000 different points - each point would still, according to that taxonomy, be the point where white begins.

Fair enough. But as Zillah points out above, we do not have a definition of human; whereas the definition of 'black' is simply 'nonlight' or whatever.

Now, you may respond by arguing that God does not exist, but then that becomes another circular argument:

1. The biblical God does not exist.
2. Therefore God could not define what is human.
3. Therefore it is impossible to define 'human' (let's ignore the leap of logic there since I'm having more fun concentrating on the hilarity of the circularity).
4. Therefore there was no 'first human couple'
5. Therefore the biblical God does not exist.

Again, may I remind you that I have nowhere argued in this thread that God does exist. I am simply having a lot of fun exploring the weaknesses of the arguments that claim to have evidence for his non-existence.

I have never said that the biblical God does not exist.

PDN

Zillah wrote:

We haven't, thats where your position falls down.

We have no straight forward definition, we have a remarkably loose set of criteria that change with time and personal preference. Imagine you have a huge and complex building. We take out a brick...do you still consider it the same building? Of course you do. How many bricks do you have to take out before it stops being the building you know? A hundred different people will have dozens of different answers as to when it stops being the same building. We haven't got a hard and fast definition for what that building is, its a far more ambiguous notion. If we wanted to make such a definition then we have to accept that its not the same building any more as soon as a single brick is taken out.

The fact that you might get dozens of definitions is a completely different proposition from saying that there are no definitions at all.

Also, the existence of any number of definitions (even trillions) does not mean that none of those definitions are correct.

PDN

The Mad Hatter wrote:

Fair enough. But as Zillah points out above, we do not have a definition of human; whereas the definition of 'black' is simply 'nonlight' or whatever.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

However, this raises another interesting issue. If we don't have a definition of human, then all statements contrasting humans with animals must therefore be nonsense.

I understand that Richard Dawkins argues in The Selfish Gene that humans have an adaptive mechanism (a meme) that other species lack. Therefore, if we do not have a definition of 'human', then Dawkins must be talking crap (assuming we have a definition for 'crap').

Zillah

PDN wrote:

The fact that you might get dozens of definitions is a completely different proposition from saying that there are no definitions at all.

Also, the existence of any number of definitions (even trillions) does not mean that none of those definitions are correct.

None of them can be "correct". They're arbitrary. No biology book in the world gives an exhaustive defintion of what a human being is. We can describe thousands of features that all scientists with relevant expertise will agree are useful criteria for what we're going to call a "human", but there are millions more that are not included/excluded. And those millions of features are the very ones that will change as we look back at our ancestors over the last few million years. Hence, we cannot pin point the first "human", as the relevant criteria are not factored into our definition.

Therefore, if we do not have a definition of 'human', then Dawkins must be talking crap (assuming we have a definition for 'crap').

He's using a tool, nothing more. When he refers to a "human" he's using a definition that serves his purpose, not an exhaustive/objective definition of the likes required for your argument to be correct.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

The problem, of course, is that 'statistically speaking' simply means that something is extremely unlikely in the ordinary course of events. If you allow for divine intervention, however, statistical improbability becomes a very poor evidence for saying that something did not happen.

Now, consider the context of this thread. The OP was trying to disprove the existence of the biblical God. Now, in that context, we are discussing the possibility of a first couple (something that Wicknight claims "science says" did not exist). It would appear therefore that we have now reached the following form of argument:

1. The biblical God does not exist.
2. Since the biblical God does not exist, neither do miracles occur.
3. Since miracles do not occur, therefore the fact that something is highly improbable statistically is sufficient evidence to assert that thing is impossible.
4. The existence of a first couple is highly improbable statistically, therefore we conclude it is impossible.
5. This proves that the biblical God does not exist.

Now, my brain is not numb in the slightest (probably because, due to my Christian values, I am a tolerant individual). However, I do think this reasoning is slightly circular.

Hmm. I would see it somewhat differently. The claim that there existed a 'first couple' does not logically follow from the point that there must have been a first human. Instead, it is a separate, and equally valid claim - that there must have been a first pair of mated humans where, by whatever definition of human we choose, both members would count as 'fully human'. This claim is as self-evidently true as the other, even if we choose to quibble by pointing out that there could have been several such couples at the same time, so that the title of 'first couple' would be somewhat arbitrary.

However, you cannot claim that the first 'fully human' human was necessarily a member of the first couple, or even related to them in any close degree, simply by virtue of the logical necessity of the existence of each - which means that the first couple may have been preceded by any number of other humans.

More importantly, the claim that everyone living today is the descendant of a single first couple is a far wider claim. As far as I can see, it too is an unfalsifiable claim, for the moment, but one which may be proven false in the long run. Currently, we have a mitochondrial Eve, the most recent common known female ancestor, at about 140,000 years ago (actually 172 000 ± 50 000 years), which puts her probably after the earliest known H.sapiens by at least 30,000 years, although we might note in passing that she predates the demise of Homo erectus by 50,000 years, that of H. neanderthalis by 90,000 years, and H.florensis by about 110,000 years. She can only post-date the Biblical Eve (unless she is the Biblical Eve), so it's interesting to note that the first Biblical humans shared their world with at least two other human species. Nor was mitochondrial Eve herself necessarily an anatomically modern human, although the time-period makes it possible.

However, mitochondrial Eve is only the most recent common ancestor of modern humans. If we can look at mitochondrial DNA from 1000 years ago, we would expect that 'mitochondrial Eve' will move back in time, because some of the female lines then living no longer exist. At some point (quite quickly, in fact), mitochondrial Eve will either first predate anatomically modern humans, then H.sapiens, and so on, or she will remain fastened in time. If the latter is the case, the Biblical Eve remains possible - if the former, not so.

Either way, Eden has to be in Africa!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

1. The biblical God does not exist.
2. Since the biblical God does not exist, neither do miracles occur.
3. Since miracles do not occur, therefore the fact that something is highly improbable statistically is sufficient evidence to assert that thing is impossible.
4. The existence of a first couple is highly improbable statistically, therefore we conclude it is impossible.
5. This proves that the biblical God does not exist.

I lol'd. The opposite argument has to begin and end with "The Biblical God exists"

I agree its not a good argument against the existence of God, but luckily enough the onus is on the one making the positive claim. Unless someone can make a good argument for the existence of God then it is the logical position to assume he does not.

And, as I said at the start of this post, the argument for the existence of God is circular, and as you point out, that makes it a non-argument.

PDN

Zillah wrote:

He's using a tool, nothing more. When he refers to a "human" he's using a definition that serves his purpose, not an exhaustive/objective definition of the likes required for your argument to be correct.

So, when the Bible speaks about the first human couple, is it not reasonable to assume that the author(s) are using a definition that suits their purpose rather than an exhaustive/objective definition?

Or are we going to expect these bronze age writers to display a precision and scientific accuracy that exceeds that of a 21st Century Oxford Professor for the Public Understanding of Science?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

However, this raises another interesting issue. If we don't have a definition of human, then all statements contrasting humans with animals must therefore be nonsense.

On sufficiently close examination, that usually proves to be true.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

So, when the Bible speaks about the first human couple, is it not reasonable to assume that the author(s) are using a definition that suits their purpose rather than an exhaustive/objective definition?

Or are we going to expect these bronze age writers to display a precision and scientific accuracy that exceeds that of a 21st Century Oxford Professor for the Public Understanding of Science?

We might not expect it of the Bronze Age writers, but it's not outrageous to expect it of modern defenders of their writing.

If the earliest common female ancestor turns out to be something other than Homo sapiens, would that still fit the Biblical account?

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Zillah wrote:

I lol'd. The opposite argument has to begin and end with "The Biblical God exists"

I agree its not a good argument against the existence of God, but luckily enough the onus is on the one making the positive claim.

And, as I said at the start of this post, the argument for the existence of God is circular, and as you point out, that makes it a non-argument.

But this thread is not about the argument for the existence of God. It is about the argument for the non-existence of God.

Furthermore, if someone posts a thread in an atheist & agnostic forum claiming that they have the evidence against religion in just one argument, then the onus is most certainly on the one making that claim. Surely you can see that?

Unless someone can make a good argument for the existence of God then it is the logical position to assume he does not.

Really?

Thousands of years ago nobody could make a good argument for the existence of black holes. Therefore, as you say, it was an entirely logical position to assume that black holes did not exist.

However, black holes do exist, which is more than I can say for your argument.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

We might not expect it of the Bronze Age writers, but it's not outrageous to expect it of modern defenders of their writing.

If the earliest common female ancestor turns out to be something other than Homo sapiens, would that still fit the Biblical account?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ne traversez jamais un pont avant que vous n'y veniez.

evasively,
PDN

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Ne traversez jamais un pont avant que vous n'y veniez.

evasively,
PDN

Caelum, non animum mutant qui trans pontus currunt.

approximately,
Scofflaw

Zillah

PDN wrote:

So, when the Bible speaks about the first human couple, is it not reasonable to assume that the author(s) are using a definition that suits their purpose rather than an exhaustive/objective definition?

Yes, thats reasonable. However, like all such definitions, that doesn't make them "right". Their argument is circular: These two humans are the first animal we will call humans, therefore they are the first two humans. If you're abandoning your position that their definition maintains some sort of objective worth, then all we have left is the afformentioned entirely meaningless circular assertion.

Which of course raises the question of what that definition could possibly be? They are asserting that one generation were not humans, and the next was. Our understanding of reproductive processes tells us that the difference between each generation are extremely trivial, evolution is a process so slow and gradual so as to defy our ability to perceive it intuitively. The parents of Adam and Eve would have had no differences that any modern perceiver could see as relevant. What might that essential mutation be? An immune system that had one protein slightly modified? A pigmentation change in the iris that made it a slightly darker brown? Sharper vision?

All the factors that we would consider to be dictinctly human, such as intelligence, compassion, love etc are all gradual processes. As the brain develops along generations it tends to slowly become more complex, rather than making any leaps or bounds. Adam's grandfather would have had no less ability to feel compassion, to hope or hurt, than Adam would have.

If you would in theory agree with their definition of human, what sort of criteria would you expect them to require? What was the essential humaness that Eve had that her mother did not? Why is that one trait so distinctively 'human'? Why is that one trait so fundamentally essential to humaness that it is more relevant that those oh so distinctively human qualities of compassion and conscience, hopes and fears? I'd argue that its not, but you need to assert that it is, otherwise the Bible is incorrect.

Also, there is another major flaw in the argument: Adam and Eve would both have had to develop the exact same mutation seperately, but simultaneously. That is to say the least, staggeringly unlikely. Granted, not impossible, but so unlikely as to defy credibility. Unless of course they were identical twins who then went on to spawn the rest of the human race...

Zillah

PDN wrote:

Furthermore, if someone posts a thread in an atheist & agnostic forum claiming that they have the evidence against religion in just one argument, then the onus is most certainly on the one making that claim. Surely you can see that?

Of course, of course. I accepted above that the argument made against God in the OP was a bad one. I was merely commenting on the larger picture.

Thousands of years ago nobody could make a good argument for the existence of black holes. Therefore, as you say, it was an entirely logical position to assume that black holes did not exist.

Yes, exactly. If someone had claimed blackholes exist thousand of years ago he would have none of the support we have now, and he should rightly be dismissed as one more wacko making insubstantiated claims. Thats the thing about science, it can get it wrong, but it is still our best bet to be correct. I would dismiss this blackhole person back then, and I'd have been wrong. But I would have also dismissed the guy who thinks the earth sits on a giant turtle, the guy who claims the sun gets eaten by a dragon during an eclipse and the millions of other crazy unsupported claims people have made throughout history.

The scientific method is not a magic power that always gets the right answer. But it does represent our greatest chance of getting the right answer. Every time we commit to an answer about the natural world we are taking a gamble, its never 100%. But a wise gambler puts his money on science every single time. If we had bet a tenner on the ancient Blackhole guy being wrong we'd have lost it, but we won billions more on all the other ones.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Also, there is another major flaw in the argument: Adam and Eve would both have had to develop the exact same mutation seperately, but simultaneously. That is to say the least, staggeringly unlikely. Granted, not impossible, but so unlikely as to defy credibility. Unless of course they were identical twins who then went on to spawn the rest of the human race...

I think that misses one of the main points of PDN's argument, which is that the idea of Adam and Eve arising accidentally in the absence of God is not relevant to the argument about the Biblical Adam and Eve.

He is proposing that:

1. God exists
2. God specifically created Adam and Eve - perhaps not by simply moulding them out of clay, but by ensuring that two people with the right characteristics were together.

The question of probability does not, under those circumstances, really arise.

That may look like circular reasoning, but it isn't. It would be if you then used the existence of Adam and Eve to prove God, but PDN is simply putting it forward as one possible model of history. God is assumed in the model, but the question is whether the model fails to account for observed evidence. If it accounts for the evidence, it remains a possible model.

It's important to realise that PDN is not claiming that the Bible is scientifically true, as, say, JC does. Therefore, there is no requirement on PDN to refrain from invoking direct intervention, whereas JC cannot invoke miracles, because he claims that the truth of the Bible can be established scientifically, independently of belief in God. PDN does not claim that, as far as I've ever seen - indeed, as far as I'm aware, he considers that position to be a silly one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

I see. Well, I feel that any argument that requires the invocation of Deus Ex Machina is entirely useless, there can be no discussion. Its not neccessarily wrong, but entirely useless.

PDN

Zillah wrote:

I see. Well, I feel that any argument that requires the invocation of Deus Ex Machina is entirely useless, there can be no discussion. Its not neccessarily wrong, but entirely useless.

In normal circumstances I would agree with you.

However, if someone wants to start a thread arguing that no Deus exists whatsoever, then obviously it is legitimate to refer to said Deus while refuting such arguments.

Otherwise we would have a thread that purports to produce evidence against the existence of biblical God, but refuses to allow posters to entertain the possibility of a biblical God in any of their discussion. That, I would suggest, would most emphatically be circular reasoning.

So, that would mean that this whole thread is useless - which may well be the case. In that case, we should all find something better to do - so I'm off to Church!

Fanny Cradock

Son Goku wrote:

Since it's slightly on-topic, I was just wondering how do you approach the "prime mover" problem? The problem is the fact that although there is no philosophical conflict between science and the existence of a God, in order for this God to match what science says, or fit in with science in a thematic sense (whatever that means) it must be an abstract prime mover deity. As opposed to the very personal Christian God.

Some people say they find it difficult to reconcile a God who, like watchmaker, sets up intellectually a mechanical self-contained universe and the "right by your side" essence of the God of the bible.

Not to say this is an actual problem, but what is your answer to it?

Well, I assume by 'prime mover' you are referring to the first cause which began it all. I would see this question as being answerable in two ways: scientifically and theologically. From a scientific perspective, I would have no problem accepting that the universe was created by the Big Bang. I would also not have any objections to some of the more speculative physics I'm aware of (however cursory my understanding) that attempt to explain what happened before the Big Bang. I don't believe that they explain away God. From a faith perspective, although fascinating, the distinction between the two (before and after the Big Bang) would seem to be splitting hairs - God is still required to start it all.

To an extent, I would see God as having set something in motion and letting the chips fall where they may. This, however, is not to say that God also didn't keep things on track, in the grander sense of things, so as to ensure certain outcomes. I think of it as a wind-up toy randomly trotting away on a table top with the occasional intervention of a guiding hand to keep it from falling off.

I'm not completely sure what you mean by an 'abstract God'. But as for God "on the personal level", the "right by your side" level, most Christians would feel that God plays and active part in all our lives, whether we are aware of it or not. I would see however much interaction God had in the universe after it was created (be it an occasional had or a much more active roll) as being entirely separate to how he deals with us on an individual level.

I hope that ramble has answered your questions to an extent.