[Good bloke]

(Original post by UniOfLife)
What I'm getting at is that your arguments would lead us to conclude that we should not believe a single thing we are told by anyone about anything. And yet no one follows or even claims that conclusion.

Ah! I'm not saying that. I would argue that any reasonable person should examine the sources critically and in the light of the likely possibilities. This is taught in schools and by general life lessons. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary examination.

For instance, if you told me today that you owned a bicycle I would be inclined to believe you without much examination because it is a commonplace and has no real relevance to me. If you told me you owed a brand-new Ferrari I would be much less likely to believe you as it doesn't seem likely in one of the age and financial status I assume (perhaps wrongly) you are. Again, I have no motivation to examine the claim closely. If you told me your Ferrari could fly I would give the claim no credence at all unless you provided strong supporting evidence.

[bordercollies10]

(Original post by Good bloke)
Let's keep the principle simple and assume there are six planets, each with a man throwing a die. If he gets a six, that represents life starting on that planet. The odds of life on any individual planet are low (only 1 in 6) but the chances of life starting somewhere are very high indeed - about 2 in 3. The more planets you add, the higher the chance of life forming.

Point accepted, but holes still remain in your proposition (for example, how can intellect come to be? Which part of the brain is responsible for such a process? Computer Scientists are merely trying to simulate intellegence rather than create it - by using neural networks that cosnist of neurones, axons and dendrites - as computer architectures all work to the same basic principal as that set forth by Searle when he came up with his Chinese Room arguement...
...plus I can't really see where this aforementioned nucliec acid would have derrived from...

[bm127]

(Original post by bordercollies10)
Evolution happens constantly, I know, it is how species adapt to climatic/gegographical/ecological alternations - but the problem I have with evolutionists is that they swear by Darwin's origin of life, which has a very low chance of occuring...

Yes but there is a chance of it occurring. In my mind it doesn't make sense to ignore something that could have occurred in favour of having faith in something impossible. Obviously this is just my opinion, but I don't see how to deal with the issue of improbability, creating something impossible helps at all, as you said, there is a chance abiogenesis occurred (I know you said very low chance, but you did say chance nonetheless).

Molecular biologists have found that generating amino acids is difficult, not impossible, and the Miller-Urey experiment was shown after Miller's death to have produced over 20 different amino acids, which is more than the 20 that naturally occur in life. And now there is evidence for there being major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, and when the gases that would have been produced by these are added to the original experiment, more diverse molecules are produced. (from wikipedia and a few other websites, so I apologise for inaccuracies, this is not an area of expertise for me, I am just interested in it).

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by noisy06)
The cat's out of the bag. Tell me, how dare you make such a ridiculous assertion based upon the historical actions of a few sects from one faith? Aside from the fact that you have blind faith, tell me how scholars in Islam have "enormous power" and how the early generation have gained from this mass deception. (So apparently they unanimously agreed on a lie at a national level in Arabia 14 centuries ago and then went about creating intricate texts and details all in an effort to "gain" something out of this complex self-deception and deceiving others).

That is the bread and butter framework for cult formation. It has been done for millennia, and continues to this day in a variety of formats. It isn't just an outlandish possibility given how humans have done this so many times in history, and more importantly, so many humans have bought into it.

The scholars held enormous power because where there has been disagreement about an issue in Islam, the consensus of scholarly opinion is what is deemed to be correct, and therefore these scholars have had the power to determine what is Islamic and what is not.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by py0alb)
If the religious were as naively unskeptical about all outrageous claims as they are about the laughable "evidence" for their particular religious beliefs, they would be the biggest bunch of mugs in the world. Fortunately, they are not entirely stupid, just hypocrites.

Gone are the days when a wise man could find out who the murderer was by sending the suspects one at a time into a darkened tent and telling them that the water level in a bowl would rise after the true murderer had been in its presence, expecting the culprit to tip some water out and thus reveal himself. The modern analytical thinking hasn't percolated through to all areas of life for all people yet. But it will, in time.

[noisy06]

(Original post by Good bloke)
When you use language like that it implies that you either have the power to have me punished, or wish you had.

I dare because I am living in a free, enlightened western society that is becoming ever more free of religiously-influenced laws and conventions. Anyway, it isn't ridiculous.

I probably wish I had punished yeah, not because of your beliefs on theology, but because when you assume things like the above in an unjustified manner, then in my opinion that is worthy of severe punishment! Well, you clearly are not contributing to the enlightenment of Western society with the mediocrity of your statements I can assure you.

(Original post by Good bloke)
Think back to Mohammed, the first Islamic scholar. He was a mediaeval warlord who needed to gain popular support. What better way to get that support than to be the single mouthpiece of Allah? That the religion he started is still following what he laid down over a thousand years later says more about the modern people who follow it than about his political needs and methods.

Of course, many modern Islamic scholars use the religion to control the masses in such diverse countries as Saudi Arabia and Iran and, soon, Egypt. Do you deny that?

He already had popular support. He was the direct descendent of Abdul Muttalib. It's when he began preaching that his unpopularity rose, when he opened his mouth about God that's when the brutality and fierce opposition to him began. You have no idea what on earth you are talking about. You give all the Non-Muslim academics out there who toil by and by night trying to concoct a nice story to discredit Muhammad a very bad name, do you know that?

In Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the scholars were and are to this day under the direct control of those representing authority, they are not the authority. In fact, let's take Saudi Arabia as an example. The monarchy is the sole decision maker in the Kingdom, the King is an absolute ruler. Scholars are allowed to disagree on state policy, but if they propagate their disagreement publicly (on radio or airwaves) then they could find themselves blacklisted and banned from public arena. In fact, I watch and listen to Saudi scholars all the time, a lot of the time they clearly don't agree with the Monarchy, but there's nothing they can do about it. The idea that they "control" the masses is a sickening conspiracy, one which I'm not really surprised comes from a person who believes that the universe is the result of random quantum fluctuations. Once you believe that, then nothing is out of bounds.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by bordercollies10)
Point accepted, but holes still remain in your proposition ...

Er, no. I have merely sought to inform you how the odds of life forming somewhere are not as small as you think. I have said nothin g about the development of intellect, which obviously requires billions of years of evolution. And guess what! It has had that.

...plus I can't really see where this aforementioned nucliec acid would have derrived from

At this stage you need to go a find a biology text book of a suitable level and read it carefully. One has been recommended to you in this thread.

[see-are]

(Original post by Steevee)
Trolololol

How can you say that about my beliefs? This has got to be reportable.

[bordercollies10]

(Original post by bm127)
Yes but there is a chance of it occurring. In my mind it doesn't make sense to ignore something that could have occurred in favour of having faith in something impossible. Obviously this is just my opinion, but I don't see how to deal with the issue of improbability, creating something impossible helps at all, as you said, there is a chance abiogenesis occurred (I know you said very low chance, but you did say chance nonetheless).

Molecular biologists have found that generating amino acids is difficult, not impossible, and the Miller-Urey experiment was shown after Miller's death to have produced over 20 different amino acids, which is more than the 20 that naturally occur in life. And now there is evidence for there being major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, and when the gases that would have been produced by these are added to the original experiment, more diverse molecules are produced. (from wikipedia and a few other websites, so I apologise for inaccuracies, this is not an area of expertise for me, I am just interested in it).

What amazes me by the evolutionists' arguements is that how can all of the conditions, by chance, come to be right for life to start forming without some sort of unchanged, constant (rather like a chemical in some aspects) first mover that can operate under the auspices of omniscience? Why is there a sun and water on this earth (I know life requires these things to come to be and evolve, but what caused these things to come to be?)? It would be naueve of me to assume that Earth is the only planet that can support life forms in ths universe (any planet probably could if you built equipment to help us humans survive on the planets as the laws of physics will be universal) but the creatures would adapt to the conditions presented to them on the planet and evolve...

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by bordercollies10)
Point accepted, but holes still remain in your proposition (for example, how can intellect come to be? Which part of the brain is responsible for such a process? Computer Scientists are merely trying to simulate intellegence rather than create it - by using neural networks that cosnist of neurones, axons and dendrites - as computer architectures all work to the same basic principal as that set forth by Searle when he came up with his Chinese Room arguement...
...plus I can't really see where this aforementioned nucliec acid would have derrived from...

Once again. "I don't know, therefore God."

Wake up and think! Explore the world without making it look like some jealous infant's plasticine model.

[bordercollies10]

(Original post by Good bloke)
Er, no. I have merely sought to inform you how the odds of life forming somewhere are not as small as you think. I have said nothin g about the development of intellect, which obviously requires billions of years of evolution. And guess what! It has had that.




At this stage you need to go a find a biology text book of a suitable level and read it carefully. One has been recommended to you in this thread.

Should the universe be infinite then chance wouldn't even be part of the question, but is it infinite (if it really is then every possibility will be possible and the difference between this earth and the next could be as small as Student Room's banner being green as oppose to blue)?

[Good bloke]

(Original post by noisy06)
I probably wish I had punished

You don't seem to be very enlightened, do you? You seem to be very intolerant, in fact. Doesn't your religion preach tolerance? Or does it preach punishment of people like me?

He already had popular support. He was the direct descendent of Abdul Muttalib. It's when he began preaching that his unpopularity rose, when he opened his mouth about God that's when the brutality and fierce opposition to him began. You have no idea what on earth you are talking about. You give all the Non-Muslim academics out there who toil by and by night trying to concoct a nice story to discredit Muhammad a very bad name, do you know that?

But not popular enough. I'm not trying to discredit Mohammed. I admire him as a very effective and successful mediaeval warlord. He did what he had to do to succeed, using tools that worked at the time.

In Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the scholars were and are to this day under the direct control of those representing authority, they are not the authority.

Is that why the laws of Saudi Arabia are so heavily Islamocentric. Do the scholars have no influence on the king? I think they heavily influence him, and they have gangs of thugs (sorry, religious police) to enforce their Islamic interpretations which go well beyond other Islamic states, keeping women repressed. The Iranian scholars do, literally, control the politicians. And I believe they soon will in Egypt.

[Ignoramus]

(Original post by green.tea)
^Thats a good point. Perhaps a good way for religion to modernize would be to keep the philosophy but drop the belief in the way the old testament has been dropped. As it stands i doubt youd get a great reception at church if you told them you thought god and jesus were made up and were just there for the singing and tea and biscuits.

I think a good way for religion to modernize would be not to drop dogma, but to accept people who choose not to follow it.

[noisy06]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
That is the bread and butter framework for cult formation. It has been done for millennia, and continues to this day in a variety of formats. It isn't just an outlandish possibility given how humans have done this so many times in history, and more importantly, so many humans have bought into it.

The scholars held enormous power because where there has been disagreement about an issue in Islam, the consensus of scholarly opinion is what is deemed to be correct, and therefore these scholars have had the power to determine what is Islamic and what is not.

Actually, you have highlighted the exact nature of the problem academics have with drawing correlation between specifically Islam, and cults/other faiths/theologies. Since the Arabian Peninsula converted from total paganism, to total Islam within the space of 23 years, which is almost overnight in the context of mass conversions at a national level, it takes some very serious work (many Phd's) to figure out exactly what caused an entire peninsula to change its mannerisms and attitude, religion and rituals, clothing, the the economic transactions, the social structure norms and interactions and not to mention the military endeavours all in the space of a couple of decades, ane believe it or not, some academics have unashamedly and boldly claimed that it was self deception on a national level. It is not possible for a society to change in this manner, this quickly by consensus of all political scientists except by way of special explanation. A cult or theological belief takes a few years to begin, but it takes many decades or centuries or even millenia to actually establish itself in any society. Certainly not 23 years.

[bordercollies10]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
Once again. "I don't know, therefore God."

Wake up and think! Explore the world without making it look like some jealous infant's plasticine model.

I'm assuming there is a God because I attribute the term of God to the first mover of The Universe - who knows what the wider, absolute picture would reveal? I've raised and declined a few points, but wether or not we are right about the origin of the universe we will not know for sure as we can not simply bend the laws of physics and travel back in time and observe for ourselves...

[Maker]

(Original post by bordercollies10)
Theism isn't logical?
Suppose there was a stick that was moved by the wind caused by the sea ad infinitum - eventually you are going to come to an unchanged mover (a causer of all things caused). From an a priori perspective, it could be argued that God can begat (give rise to) anything bar another God (because, by defintion, God is perfect). Good wouldn't be without evil and evil is really just the reduced concentration of goodness (by which complies with the moral parameters of God who has the standard of holliness) - and that is a result of finitude (the opposite of light isn't dark and the opposite of heat is not cold). Evolution suggests that you can put some watch parts into a bag, shake the bag for a few billion years and be able to pull out a fully working watch at the end of the process (given an infinite number of chances, yes it would happen) - but how can humans evolve from fish? Fish lay eggs and don't care for their young. Plus why are there still monkeys? - this is for those who beleive in the verbatim teachings of Darwin....
By the very defintion of dualism of mind and matter (think Decartes!!) the cognition is attributed to the immortal, immaterial soul which has the ability to transcend this entity. By the very process of electrical modulation and demodulation, the electrical signals that pulsate along the axons and dendrites can be changed (therefore you could be immersed into an alternate reality and decieved).
...but I'm just giving you guys some food for thought...

It is obvious evolution is not a mechanism to make specific organisms. Evolution doesn't decide to make fish or humans, its simply a mechanism to perpetuate genes. Thats where the watch analogy falls down, it is an argument from ignorance.

Organisms are simply the means to perpetuate genes which is the reason there are so many different organisms, each organism has different properties to make use of its environment and the environment also shapes the organisms by the organisms adapting to it.

[UniOfLife]

(Original post by py0alb)
It is not knowledge because it is not a justified true belief. I will leave it to you to expound upon the definition of justified.

So amuse me by attempting to now show how this definition contradicts my original statement. You will have to demonstrate that the two concepts of "that which is observable" and "that which is known by science and secular morality" are identical. Good luck with that

As I said earlier, either you define "justified" so as to include statements made by religions or else it automatically precludes such statements. For example:

(Original post by Good bloke)
The fact that it is unsupported weak hearsay, from an unscientific source with an obvious bias - and unrepeatable.

If something cannot be justified unless it is repeatable then you have defined knowledge in such a way as to make your initial challenge pretty meaningless.

I may well be wrong but nothing you have said to this point has given me any reason to think that I am.

(Original post by Good bloke)
Ah! I'm not saying that. I would argue that any reasonable person should examine the sources critically and in the light of the likely possibilities. This is taught in schools and by general life lessons. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary examination.

True. But there are other factors to consider here. For example, the cost to myself. If someone claims to be part of some large criminal conspiracy network I may well be disinclined to believe him. However, if he claims to be part of that conspiracy and has kidnapped my family and is holding them hostage until I perform some feat of skill that I alone can do then I am more inclined to do as he says without really worrying too much about the probability of what he is saying being true.

[Ignoramus]

(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
(1) Pascal's wager is absurd on many levels. Firstly, it assumes that god would be happy with this sort of "playing the system"/ falsely professed faith. Secondly, it assumes that there are only two options in the bet; actually, there are infinite equally unevidenced options, the taking of each of which could have infinite adverse consequences, and that includes opting to follow Christianity. I can quite easily make up a religion that holds that atheists go to a nice place after death whilst Christians, and Christians alone, go to a very nasty one, and you can't say that it's invalid, because there's no reason why it should be less valid than Christianity as a possible bet option. This is why I posted the QI clip. I think it demonstrates that point quite well.

If your question is why a reason illogical to the point of absurdity for believing something shouldn't be a good thing if the belief it induces makes someone happy, I think that goes rather beyond the scope of the thread. We're talking about not is true, not why, or indeed if, we should desire truth.

I guess the real problem with both your criticism and the wager itself, is that both models create division between people. While Pascal's wager may be good in that it may induce someone to do good things, it also implies that non-belief in God is a sin, and therefore a bad thing. Whereas your criticism is good in that it attempts to get rid of such ideas, it also implies that people who have such beliefs have impaired logic or reasoning. I think that this causes at least as much division and misunderstanding between people, as the wager itself (though ofc I don't have any data).

While I accept that we're discussing what is true, I've been increasingly feeling that such discussions are truly meaningless when dealing with metaphysics. These discussions shouldn't be what religion (or atheism) are about, in my opinion.

</subjectivity>

[py0alb]

(Original post by UniOfLife)
As I said earlier, either you define "justified" so as to include statements made by religions or else it automatically precludes such statements. For example:

Incorrect. There is no such dichotomy. The definition of "justified" neither automatically excludes nor automatically includes a statement simply because of the nature of the book it is written in. Each statement must be assessed upon its own merits.

I really would have thought that all this would be quite obvious.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by UniOfLife)
If something cannot be justified unless it is repeatable then you have defined knowledge in such a way as to make your initial challenge pretty meaningless.

I didn't mean to imply that something had to be repeateable to be believed. If that were the case history couldn't exist.

What I meant was that your book's claim that a creator had created everything did not make that claim knowledge as it was just a claim - and a claim that is based on unsupported hearsay and , worse, was unrepeatable (i.e. unable to be tested by experiment).