tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post7987184593601563861..comments2023-10-25T10:45:54.660-05:00Comments on Answers in Genesis BUSTED!: Review: The Six Ways of AtheismAIGBustedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03232781356086767207noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-58017922242085155562010-03-02T21:54:23.465-06:002010-03-02T21:54:23.465-06:00Olber's paradox is based on an incorrect assum...Olber's paradox is based on an incorrect assumption: That light can travel over infinite distance without being aborbed. You might want to check out my book, “The Scientific Worldview,” for the details. It should answer a lot of your questions. See: www.scientificphilosophy.com<br />Glenn BorchardtGlenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-22335994336239421562010-02-09T01:41:17.224-06:002010-02-09T01:41:17.224-06:00WE are not gods. However humans naturally believe ...WE are not gods. However humans naturally believe in powerful and good father figures, humans just as well naturally seek power of some kind over the other humans. <br /><br />That's not the point. The point is that if you want to discredit (rightfully) imaginary figures like the biblical God you can not do it based solely on your own imagination.<br /><br />One can not say the God does not exist because he imagines him all-powerful and all-good and that surely can not exists (just think about all the paradox) because others might imagine him otherwise. <br /><br />You can discredit something saying it is not scientific. (mostly based on falsification, Russel's teapot, Invisible Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster etc) or proving something false (like Genesis, Noah's flood, mythical creatures etc).lyesmithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10054932859502692978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-47626106426382977392010-02-08T15:15:53.242-06:002010-02-08T15:15:53.242-06:00I think the arguments as to whether there is a &qu...I think the arguments as to whether there is a "god" or not are sort of pointless and divisive. I prefer to think that maybe WE are gods and most people lose sight of it. <br /><br />Most of the atheological arguments center upon an externalized godform. They would do well to learn from the Buddhists, the original organized atheists. The human mind and psyche plays a huge role which they normally discount.NM Illuminatihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16553425492795985308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-7263928783712703532010-02-08T03:08:35.076-06:002010-02-08T03:08:35.076-06:00These arguments are extremely false in many levels...These arguments are extremely false in many levels.<br /><br />We do not know whether God is omnipotent or not. First of all there supposed to be many gods. Most of them minor, born and died. Some of them (like Brahma) existing for trillions of years, but still born and will die. Others like God we simply do not know enough, to tell. (Even in the Bible Gos uses plural when created the men, this suggest that he was not the only creator. (obviously this happens because direct copy from Enûma Eliš)) The God described in the Bible is not all-powerful or all-good. Compared to other gods he is reasonably powerful but kind of petty and full of vengeance.<br />Anyway saying that there are no God or gods is stupid since we just do not know enough. <br /><br />Also no one said that God is supremely good. As it described in the Bible God directly ordered to kill thousands for petty reasons. (Men picked up a stick on Saturday) and directly butchered possibly millions on several occasions (men and animals). Certainly not the act of goodness.<br /><br />What is the "God has no explanatory value" Has a piece of rock any explanatory value? This is a religious argument expecting everything to have reason or purpose. Theoretically God could exist as everything else by blind chance. Again don't expect a book barely a thousand page long to describe everything satisfactorily. A single computer manual is way larger than that. You can not take the Bible as "Explanation of everything, exactly as it is".<br /><br />The fifth argument that "He argues that God must have certain knowledge of anything (if it is to be called 'God')" is plainly stupid. Sorry but I can not describe it any other way. According to the Bible on several occasions Gods actions went way south. So much so that he even planed to destroy everything and start from scratch. The original meaning of "god" is simply "a being with superhuman power". There is no word about ultimate knowledge or ultimate power. Many men and women were called god. And there are millions of gods with limited power.<br /><br /><br />Philosophy is not a way can lead to atheism since it can not prove or disprove.<br /><br /><br />Lets say we build a super computer in which we simulate a universe. We set the properties of the universe so intelligence can evolve. And also we prevent any method to figure out the basic properties from inside. (Lets say we create a sensory resolution limit like Planck units ) So no evolved intelligence will be able to see the basic properties, so they will have no knowledge that they live in a simulation. We run the simulation for 5 hours which in the simulated time is 14 Billion years. Then the computer beeps that it sensed intelligence. We have the ability to speed up time, or stop it completely, we have the ability to trigger earthquakes or change genetics of an individual. In this context we would be Gods with ultimate power, we would have full control over the universe and the scientist in the universe will have no mean to figure out whether we exists or not. But for gods we would be the geek type. No good or evil, lazy sometimes we would act as gods and sometimes we would go home to our wives and husbands and leave the people alone for hundreds of years. And they would have no way to figure it out.<br /><br />Now lets say that WE live in that simulation. There would be real God or gods, but ALL the religion would be false and there would be no scientific or religious way to figure them out.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />The correct argument would be that "There are no God or gods that have been described in the Bible or any other religious text, because we can scientifically prove that. There might be beings that qualify as god or gods but there is no way we could prove or disprove this so it is not scientific or logical to say it."lyesmithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10054932859502692978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-7412822170722742492010-02-07T22:21:57.529-06:002010-02-07T22:21:57.529-06:00Hi. It's great you liked Berg's book so m...Hi. It's great you liked Berg's book so much. I haven't read it, but I read the overviews of the arguments in a few places. The arguments are not new ones. Deductive atheological arguments that press for the incompatibility of multiple properties have been around for centuries. And the argument that it is statistically improbable for a being to have all of the traits is based on a flat out fallacy. He seems to be operating in a vacuum. I've got a long annotated bibliography of much better sources at the end of my Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Atheism here:<br />http://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/<br /><br />Keep up the good work. <br /><br />Matt McCormickMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.com