Patrickatheism

If God exists, atheism is false. Thus atheism is dependent upon the truth of whether or not God exists.

Imagine a world in which it is true that God exists and it is also the case that atheism is true.

This is the world of Patrickatheism.

762 thoughts on “Patrickatheism

  1. dazz,

    Really? Look at all the irreducible complexity that gets built in a gradual, step-wise natural process. No intelligence involved.

    Can you support your claim that no intelligence is involved? This implies that you understand how all the mechanisms work. If you are talking about humans can you support how this mechanism originated?

  2. colewd: can you support how this mechanism originated?

    … and zero! Goalposts moved. You’re so pathetically predictable it’s not funny anymore.

    Dig out your IC definitions, any of them, then consider how nature overcomes the purported impossibility in gradual development of those IC systems. And remember your entire argument relies on the fact that that impossibility points to ID.

    Do you believe IC systems can’t be formed in a gradual, step-wise process and that supports ID? Well, embryos do that. Do you think embryos can’t do that unless ID is involved? Circular reasoning is circular

    colewd: Can you support your claim that no intelligence is involved?

    I don’t need to, it’s a meaningless concept to begin with. You’re the one who claims “intelligence” and “design” is involved. Can you be specific as to what do those terms help explain the process? Of course you can’t because those things are completely devoid of any kind of explanatory power. Note that I’m not even asking for evidence, just some explanation

  3. colewd:

    And I have pointed out at least twice that you are making a claim about something your god did, not providing a definition of what it is.

    If we are talking about Thomas Edison that created the electric light bulb.Why can’t I define him as the creator of the lightbulb.

    You can identify the person who created the light bulb as Thomas Edison. That’s just one thing that he did. What he is (was) is a human being with all the capabilities and limitations we know human beings have.

    Or James Klerk Maxwell as the creator of the mathematical model for electro magnetism.Lets say I don’t know who the creator of electromagnetism is but I have seen the equations.Can I then infer that electromagnetism mathematics was the product of design and then define someone as the creator of electromagnetism?

    That’s very confused. You just switched from the model of electromagnetism to electromagnetism itself. The first is a human construct. You’ve provided no reason that the second should require a creator.

    You’re also using, perhaps inadvertently, a typical creationist bait and switch. We know humans exist and we know what they are and are not capable of creating. You have yet to define “god” in enough detail to determine if a particular entity is one or not.

    Why so coy? Just define exactly what you mean by “god” (what it is, not what you’ve claimed it has done) and provide whatever evidence you have for the existence of such a thing.

  4. Patrick: That’s very confused. You just switched from the model of electromagnetism to electromagnetism itself.

    They can’t tell fiction from reality but you demand them to differentiate map from territory… not very charitable of you Patrick :p

  5. dazz: They can’t tell fiction from reality but you demand them to differentiate map from territory… not very charitable of you Patrick :p

    I’m probably just cranky from having returned from vacation.

  6. Patrick,

    You’re also using, perhaps inadvertently, a typical creationist bait and switch. We know humans exist and we know what they are an are not capable of creating. You have yet to define “god” in enough detail to determine if a particular entity is one or not.

    I am simply giving an incomplete description of an entity for argument purposes. The reality is that all descriptions of entities are incomplete. You say that my argument is invalid because I have not completely described what I am claiming the evidence supports. I conclude that your claim that there is no evidence for God is not well supported because you cannot argue against a limited description of God.

  7. dazz,

    colewd: Can you support your claim that no intelligence is involved?

    Dazz: I don’t need to

    Really?

  8. Well you know, God is what can make life, create physics, and produce the universe.

    And lo, these things exist. QED.

    No, it may look like a caricature, but that’s what ID/creationism really boils down to, God is what can do these things, these things exist, therefore God. Somehow it seems meaningful to them.

    Glen Davidson

  9. Patrick,

    You have yet to define “god” in enough detail to determine if a particular entity is one or not

    This is the fundamental disagreement. I think the creator of the universe is a particular entity.

  10. colewd:
    dazz,

    Yeah, really. What’s “Intelligence” in the context of embryo development anyway? Why are you selectively picking bits and pieces of my posts to avoid the crux of the matter?

    Simple question. Is IC formed in a embryo in a gradual step-wise process or not?

  11. colewd:

    You’re also using, perhaps inadvertently, a typical creationist bait and switch. We know humans exist and we know what they are an are not capable of creating. You have yet to define “god” in enough detail to determine if a particular entity is one or not.

    I am simply giving an incomplete description of an entity for argument purposes.The reality is that all descriptions of entities are incomplete.You say that my argument is invalid because I have not completely described what I am claiming the evidence supports.I conclude that your claim that there is no evidence for God is not well supported because you cannot argue against a limited description of God.

    Your “definition” is so incomplete as to be useless. You are assuming that the universe requires a creator. That is unsubstantiated. You are not providing any details at all about what you mean by “god”. With no definition and no evidence, there is nothing to refute. The burden of proof remains with you.

  12. colewd:

    You have yet to define “god” in enough detail to determine if a particular entity is one or not

    This is the fundamental disagreement.I think the creator of the universe is a particular entity.

    I’m sure you do think that. However, you have provided no definition of what such a thing might be, no argument that it is required, and no evidence that it exists. Basically you’ve spent a number of interactions in this thread saying exactly nothing.

  13. GlenDavidson:
    Well you know, God is what can make life, create physics, and produce the universe.

    And lo, these things exist.QED.

    No, it may look like a caricature, but that’s what ID/creationism really boils down to, God is what can do these things, these things exist, therefore God.Somehow it seems meaningful to them.

    Glen Davidson

    I’m trying to assume good faith, but I’m becoming convinced that you are correct.

  14. dazz,

    Yeah, really. What’s “Intelligence” in the context of embryo development anyway? Why are you selectively picking bits and pieces of my posts to avoid the crux of the matter?

    You are making unsupported claims which weakens you arguments.
    Do you really understand the process by which a zygote becomes a human?
    When you say no intelligence is involved how are you defining intelligence?
    Cells can repair themselves and this is part of the zygote to human process. Is that intelligence?
    I think every one knows that life can self replicate either sexually or a sexually. The interesting questions are:
    How did the cellular and multicellular self replicating process originate?
    How did new organisms that can’t interbreed originate?

  15. Patrick,

    I’m sure you do think that. However, you have provided no definition of what such a thing might be, no argument that it is required, and no evidence that it exists. Basically you’ve spent a number of interactions in this thread saying exactly nothing

    Can you support these claims? Or must I assume this is your opinion?

    I agree we are going in circles at this point but I do appreciate your challenges 🙂

  16. colewd,

    Blah, blah, you are cornered and you know it: Is IC formed in a embryo in a gradual step-wise process or not?

  17. dazz,

    Blah, blah, you are cornered and you know it: Is IC formed in a embryo in a gradual step-wise process or not?

    The answer is I am not sure if it is or not but at this point no one has created the process flow chart at the molecular level. If you can find one I would be very interested.

  18. colewd:
    dazz,

    The answer is I am not sure if it is or not but at this point no one has created the process flow chart at the molecular level.If you can find one I would be very interested.

    LMFAO, so no one has seen every micro step of the process, so IC systems still can’t be produced gradually in an embryo… therefore gawd. And I’m the one making unsupported claims!

  19. colewd,

    But if you think IC points to ID, shouldn’t embryological development be a great opportunity to see “ID” in action? Are we talking science here or not? What should we be looking for? Here’s your chance to apply the RIGHT PARADIGM TO SCIENCE! Come on Billy, make your dent in history!

  20. God of the gaps. How incredibly boring. A celebration of ignorance. We don’t know something, therefore Jesus.

    Just the other day a detailed side by side comparison was completed elucidating the molecular paths involved in the development of fish fins and vertebrate hands. The genetic differences are tiny.

    As I said in another post, evolution brings certain expectations to research projects. It’s huerstically useful. ID produces no useful research ideas.

  21. petrushka,

    It’s even worse than that. It’s massively hypocritical: religionists lost the epistemological battle and now they pretend science supports their presuppositions. And when they are asked to provide some sort of meaningful scientific explanation to their nonsensical ideas they’ll accuse you of “scientism” while they call evolution religion. Tacit admission of defeat. Reason won a long time ago, they’re just far too retarded to notice

  22. dazz,

    But if you think IC points to ID, shouldn’t embryological development be a great opportunity to see “ID” in action? Are we talking science here or not? What should we be looking for? Here’s your chance to apply the RIGHT PARADIGM TO SCIENCE! Come on Billy, make your dent in history!

    Dizzy, I really don’t know what point you are trying to make. Do you? I know it is late in Spain.

  23. colewd:
    dazz,

    Dizzy,I really don’t know what point you are trying to make. Do you? I know it is late in Spain.

    LOL Billy, can’t you follow a simple argument? I think it’s never too late to try and use your head, no matter where you live

  24. petrushka,

    God of the gaps. How incredibly boring. A celebration of ignorance. We don’t know something, therefore Jesus.

    Naturalism of gaps. How incredibly boring. A celebration of ignorance. We don’t know something therefor will eventually come up with a natural explanation. We know God does not exist because no one can define God to our satisfaction.

  25. colewd: Dizzy, I really don’t know what point you are trying to make.

    I suppose I’d say that if only 1% of the claims ID proponents make were actually true we’d be living in a golden age where disease was a thing of the past.

    For instance, will you be using your ability to investigate biological systems as if they were designed to cure, say, cancer any time soon?

    If ID adds so much to our scientific knowledge about things why does that knowledge always seem to come in the form of books and blog posts rather then scientific papers? If it adds so much why are scientists, who would love to become X percent more productive and insightful, not making the same assumptions of design that apparently are so useful for you?

    These are of course rhetorical questions colewd. I already know the answers. But go on, try and surprise me with some original excuses.

  26. dazz,

    LOL Billy, can’t you follow a simple argument? I think it’s never too late to try and use your head, no matter where you live

    No Dizzy, you are too smart for me today. 🙂

  27. colewdA celebration of ignorance. We don’t know something therefor will eventually come up with a natural explanation.

    Can you name a single instance in the entire of history where we went from a gap in knowledge to a explanation involving god?

    That ‘celebration of ignorance’ label is entirely approprate in the original quote.

  28. colewd: The answer is I am not sure if it is or not but at this point no one has created the process flow chart at the molecular level. If you can find one I would be very interested.

    And yet you demand nothing like that level of evidence for the positions you espouse.

    You know there’s a name for that right?

  29. colewd:

    I’m sure you do think that. However, you have provided no definition of what such a thing might be, no argument that it is required, and no evidence that it exists. Basically you’ve spent a number of interactions in this thread saying exactly nothing

    Can you support these claims?Or must I assume this is your opinion?

    Just read the thread. You’ve given no definition of what you mean by “god”. You’ve simply said “the creator of the universe” as if that’s something that actually exists. You haven’t provided any details of how one could determine if a particular entity is a god or not.

    Do you honestly not see that making a claim about what some (unsubstantiated) thing did is not the same as defining what that thing is?

  30. The thing about science is that it does, bit by bit, come up with naturalistic explanations. You can bury your head in shit and pretend not to see, but no one cares about you or your pathetic ideas. You will grow old and die, and no one will remember you.

    But Shubin and Lenski will be in textbooks.

  31. OMagain,

    For instance, will you be using your ability to investigate biological systems as if they were designed to cure, say, cancer any time soon?

    I do think that the cell follows design principles and understanding this can help in research.

  32. What research? Name one research proposal since Paley, 200 years ago, that in any way requires something other than natural regularities.

  33. Patrick,

    Do you honestly not see that making a claim about what some (unsubstantiated) thing did is not the same as defining what that thing is?

    Lets see if I can break this down. I agree that saying what something does is an incomplete description. If I say that an entity shot 66 from the pro tees at Augusta National we then can infer that he/she is human and probably a professional golfer. So we can figure out what it is from what it did.

    If I drop my cell phone and it falls to the ground I can infer something called gravity. In this case gravity is something I can observe but I am not sure exactly what it is. So in this case my knowledge is based on what it does. I can make an argument for the existence of gravity based on defining what it does.

  34. petrushka,

    What research? Name one research proposal since Paley, 200 years ago, that in any way requires something other than natural regularities.

    All medical research.
    The cell follows design principles here are examples:
    Transcription
    Translation
    Alternative splicing
    Protein regulation (destruction mechanisms)
    DNA repair
    The cell cycle
    All of these follow design principles and when you understand them doing research is much easier. If you find a protein that can cause cancer if over expressed, and there are too many in the cell nucleus, then the problem is probably a disabled protein destruction mechanism. Works just like a broken computer or car.

  35. petrushka,

    The thing about science is that it does, bit by bit, come up with naturalistic explanations. You can bury your head in shit and pretend not to see, but no one cares about you or your pathetic ideas. You will grow old and die, and no one will remember you.

    I understand you have great faith in science and so do I. I just believe that there are things going on “outside” the natural world that science cannot understand. Part of Godel’s incompleteness theorem. The origin of matter is an example.

  36. God of the gaps is vacuous, literally and figuratively.

    ID brings nothing useful to the table. In 200 years it has, at best, egged a few scientists on to find natural explanations. I think that kind of research gets done anyway, because scientists are curious.

  37. colewd:
    petrushka,

    I understand you have great faith in science and so do I.I just believe that there are things going on “outside” the natural world that science cannot understand. Part of Godel’s incompleteness theorem.The origin of matter is an example.

    And of course ID is the scientific “theory” that describes what science cannot understand. Cure for cancer here we come!

  38. Sterile ideas are worse than wrong ones.

    I oppose ID thinking not because I know it to be wrong, but because it is demonstrably useless.

  39. dazz,

    Diz

    Let’s take it one (impossible) step at a time Billy
    Does IC point to ID?

    I think you are not understanding the ID argument. The argument is about ORIGINS of complex structures. The ecoli bacteria in your stomach can build a bacterial flagellum motor every 20 minutes. This is not what ID is addressing. ID is addressing the question of where did the DNA code come from originally to build this motor?

  40. petrushka,

    Sterile ideas are worse than wrong ones.

    I oppose ID thinking not because I know it to be wrong, but because it is demonstrably useless.

    Would you oppose ID if it was not being used to market religion?

  41. Billy lacks the balls to answer simple, straightforward questions. FSM knows how he got to educate his kids in any honest way. Poor them

  42. dazz,

    Billy lacks the balls to answer simple, straightforward questions. FSM knows how he got to educate his kids in any honest way. Poor them

    Diz
    When your questions make sense I will answer them. I may be wrong but you appear deeply confused.

  43. colewd: When your questions make sense I will answer them

    Does detection of irreducible complexity suggest “intelligence” must be behind it’s ORIGIN? Does that make sense to you or not?

  44. colewd:
    petrushka,
    Would you oppose ID if it was not being used to market religion?

    I don’t care one way or another about religion, and I don’t oppose teaching about ID. My high school general science class taught science history, including astrology and alchemy. That’s where Paleyism belongs. Everyone should be aware of the prehistory of science.

    Once you get into courses where research is possible, it’s easy to discover that ID is a sterile conjecture. No need to argue about it. Just ask what research projects are suggested by the notion that biology is the result of an undefined entity doing something somewhere at some time or another using undefined means for unknown reasons.

  45. dazz,

    Does detection of irreducible complexity suggest “intelligence” must be behind it’s ORIGIN? Does that make sense to you or not?

    I got it 🙂

    ID is an inference argument meaning we are inferring ID based on evidence. Universal Common Decent is also inferred. In both cases we do not have a test to validate. Irreducibly Complex is a term invented by Mike Behe to counter Darwin’s statement of evolution requiring gradual incremental steps. You use the words “must be” this is different then inference. Behe’s example for irreducible complexity is the bacterial flagellum motor which takes about 100k nucleotides to build. The ID argument is that no other mechanism we can identify other than intelligence can arrange DNA to build this motor. So if we have competing hypothesis of random mutation and natural selection vs intelligence organizing the bacterial DNA sequences. I think there is a valid third hypothesis which is we don’t have a f***ing clue.

  46. colewd,
    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/patrickatheism/comment-page-6/#comment-136079

    Once you get into courses where research is possible, it’s easy to discover that ID is a sterile conjecture. No need to argue about it. Just ask what research projects are suggested by the notion that biology is the result of an undefined entity doing something somewhere at some time or another using undefined means for unknown reasons.

    I think your points are valid. ID is a high level inference argument and does not lead to a path of understanding how evolution occurred.

    I just think the blind unguided processes are a very poor description of cellular systems, however they originated. I also think that the description of the theory of evolution in the science text books is way ahead of the evidence at this point. The value I see the ID guys having is creating a debating forum to keep the science real. They brought up the sequential space argument that showed that RMNS was an unlikely explanation of life’s diversity.

  47. colewd:

    Do you honestly not see that making a claim about what some (unsubstantiated) thing did is not the same as defining what that thing is?

    Lets see if I can break this down.I agree that saying what something does is an incomplete description.If I say that an entity shot 66 from the pro tees at Augusta National we then can infer that he/she is human and probably a professional golfer.So we can figure out what it is from what it did.

    That’s because we know a great deal about humans. Not least, in this context, that they actually exist.

    If I drop my cell phone and it falls to the ground I can infer something called gravity.In this case gravity is something I can observe but I am not sure exactly what it is.So in this case my knowledge is based on what it does.I can make an argument for the existence of gravity based on defining what it does.

    So far this is a non-sequitur.

    Let’s be frank. The god you worship in church every Sunday is much more to you and your co-religionists than just the cause of the universe. That cause, if it even makes sense to call it a cause since time itself didn’t exist prior to the universe, could be literally anything. You no doubt have a very clear idea of what it is you pray to. Provide the definition of that and we can then talk about evidence.

  48. colewd: I understand you have great faith in science and so do I. I just believe that there are things going on “outside” the natural world that science cannot understand. Part of Godel’s incompleteness theorem. The origin of matter is an example.

    Godel’s incompleteness theorems are true only of those formal systems that can express arithmetic. (Notice that first-order logic is complete — one of the main reasons why it is no longer thought that mathematics can be reduced to logic.) The theorems are not true of empirical knowledge generally or scientific theories in particular.

    There are good scientific explanations of the origins of atoms heavier than helium and hydrogen (stellar nucleosynthesis) and also of the origin of helium and hydrogen (plasma nucleosynthesis). What we don’t have at present is a good scientific explanation of the origins of the universe. Whether or not there is one, and if there is, is one that we could discover, remain open questions.

    Personally, I’m skeptical that there is, but that’s just my own view. I’m not going to tell cosmologists and physicists how to do their jobs! Besides which, science is surprising. The history of science is littered with “but science will never explain _____!”, only to find such claims dismissed as laughable when a good scientific explanation is discovered.

  49. Patrick,

    Let’s be frank. The god you worship in church every Sunday is much more to you and your co-religionists than just the cause of the universe. That cause, if it even makes sense to call it a cause since time itself didn’t exist prior to the universe, could be literally anything. You no doubt have a very clear idea of what it is you pray to. Provide the definition of that and we can then talk about evidence.

    Interesting. You need to change the argument to defend your position. The problem you are having is your claim that there is no evidence for God. Its like me saying there is no evidence for evolution and trying to defend that extreme position.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.