Why there almost certainly is No God!!

[T-Bagger]

This a very clear misrepresentation and a half truth look of how evolution through the process of natural selection occurs throughout long periods of time. Putting aside the fact of ice age like iistances, even from Darwins initial theory, it accounts for these instances. It's taught like this.


View attachment 101538

Now, the starting point is A but this is not referring to a creation point, this is just an estimated point to start from based on the most recent evidence that we have of our biological beginnings. What ends up happening is we find something even older and it begins a new start point. So our original A ends up looking like a^5 on the diagram.

More specifically to what we have found is like this...

Say we are K8 the closest we match in DNA wise is, lets say, A6. We have the same common ancestor 8 generations back but a bunch of other in-between. What this discovery is actually saying is the we found something more closer to use like M4.

It important to understand this principles basics to know what we are discovering here. It's also worth pointing out that Michael Guillen, PH.D is a re-known author known to try to link his faith with science. I'm not trying to take away his credentials, achievements and hard work away from him but this is a clear example of letting your faith interrupt the evidence that is put before you, which he's been known to do before. Which, if you research, he uses his credentials for more publicity reasons then using it to publish reviewed papers.

You realize that the Human Genome Project also came to a similar conclusion, don’t you? That humans can trace their ancestry back to a rather small pool of DNA and not through a huge pool like they had initially thought?

 

[staynattybruh]

Honest question - What have you done personally to actually seek out this God? To say there is no God is a huge step from agnosticism which at least says “I believe there is SOMETHING.” vs saying “there is no God.” Even an atheist like Josh McDowell traveled the world to set out to disprove God’s existence and when he compiled all the evidence he put together along the way, he arrived at the conclusion that there must be a God.

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye. shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh.

A very telling quote of human nature. If you look for something long enough, you may find it, but this does not mean its true. Many people look for things that are and are not there. Ask any eastern spiritual leader. They seem to find a transcendence, a inner Buddha so to speak... or ask a alien abductee victim, they'll swear up and down they see UFO's all the time.

I'm under no obligation to look for god (whatever that really means) other then what the bible says but as I've stated before, it lacks authenticity and I find no reason to hold the bible to any sort of reverence or authority. It bears every mark of man made construction. It was our first attempt of an organised philosophy of the big question of why we are here.

I never said there is not a god. As the title of this thread says, there almost certainly is no god.

Agnosticism implies that there is a possibility of deism more then theism. You can argue its more rational to believe there is a god that started everything BUT, this does not imply that this god is a personal one or one that talked and intervened with humankind.

Let me put it this way. What if I told you there is a Chinese teapot orbiting mars. With everything in your power right now, you can't disprove it, nor can I prove it. This does not mean I should give it great consideration for it to be true, no matter how many people claim it to be true.

 

[flenser]

Liberty isnt the trending topic with God bud.

Money is the big deal,just read jhon locke

Actually, liberty is a central theme throughout the New Testament, which focuses on an individual who spent his entire life defying an oppressive government, died defying it. But that wasn't wasn't my question.

 

[staynattybruh]

You realize that the Human Genome Project also came to a similar conclusion, don’t you? That humans can trace their ancestry back to a rather small pool of DNA and not through a huge pool like they had initially thought?

Look at what I'm saying, we never said that there was an never ending amount of DNA pools that we had to choose from. We have the letters A-P right now.. as we learn more that letter range becomes smaller because at some people we came from a parent ancestor. The point is, this ancestor does not imply creation, all it implies is that there is an ancestor that we all have in common and we comes before it, we do not know yet. Evolution has been saying this from the start. There is a parent ancestor we all evolved from.

 

[flenser]

I believe we all have free will to an extent. Believing the Bible narrative, God gave Adam & Eve the freewill to choose obedience or disobedience. However, there is a lot of debate theologically (in Christianity) just how much freewill there really is. Not avoiding the question - just not trying to get into a huge theological discussion here.

That does sound like a dodge, just a little : )

My understanding is free will, a.k.a. natural freedom, is something theologians agree we are born with, but that one has to obtain some additional understanding of God in order to be free to serve. The unsettled part, as I understand it, is one's natural ability to refrain from sin. But I agree it starts getting deep from there.

 

[T-Bagger]

That does sound like a dodge, just a little : )

My understanding is free will, a.k.a. natural freedom, is something theologians agree we are born with, but that one has to obtain some additional understanding of God in order to be free to serve. The unsettled part, as I understand it, is one's natural ability to refrain from sin. But I agree it starts getting deep from there.

It’s a dodge to avoid going into things like Calvinism vs Arminianism

 

[flenser]

Believer in Evolution here.
Free will for sure, but our choices are guided by behaviour patterns we picked up over the last 100,000 plus years. We evolved to look out for our tribe so that they might also look out for us. We also lie, steal and cheat but have evolved to do this only to the extent we can get way with. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but over those 100,000s of years anyone who fucked over the tribe probably didnt get to spread their DNA.

Yes, we like to eat, but don't want to be fat. Still when tasty food is abundant most of us get fat anyway. The line between free will and self control is blurry.

You have an opinion on the source of your (partial?) free will?

 

[staynattybruh]

So what are everyone's opinions on free will? Do we have it? Does it mater if we have it? I have strong opinions on this, but I'm curious what everyone else thinks, both believers and non-believers.

Libertarian freewill. No, we certainly do not have it. The idea of freewill itself doesn't make much sense to begin with. Especially the religious version of it. It's like they are saying "Of course we have freewill, the boss says so." Well, I suppose irony is hard to identify at times.

Sam Harris wrote a book on the subject.

Here is a quick rundown of his argument. I highly suggest his video and book on his view in its entirety.

 

[flenser]

Libertarian freewill. No, we certainly do not have it. The idea of freewill itself doesn't make much sense to begin with. Especially the religious version of it. It's like they are saying "Of course we have freewill, the boss says so." Well, I suppose irony is hard to identify at times.

Sam Harris wrote a book on the subject.

Here is a quick rundown of his argument. I highly suggest his video and book on his view in its entirety.

I've read Harris's book, well parts of it. He argues against all free will. It's all just physics and complexity. Is that what you believe? It can certainly be difficult to determine if a complex system like a human is acting on choice or simply reacting.

More importantly, can you prove it? Can you reliably predict human actions? Most people who deny we have free will say that science or math proves we are all just reacting. But no one comes close to proving it. So if that's what you believe, and you lack credible proof, you must be taking it on faith.

 

[staynattybruh]

I've read Harris's book, well parts of it. He argues against all free will. It's all just physics and complexity. It can certainly be difficult to determine if a complex system like a human is acting on choice or simply reacting. Is that what you believe?

More importantly, can you prove it? Can you reliably predict human actions? Most people who deny we have free will say that science or math proves we are all just reacting. But no one comes close to proving it. So if that's what you believe, and you lack credible proof, you must be taking it on faith.

That's a very unfair summary of his view. There's a great load of evidence pointing towards what Sam and I believe to be the truth. Though, I may tend to side with Daniel Dennetts view slightly more.
Free Will and Neuroscience: From Explaining Freedom Away to New Ways of Operationalizing and Measuring It
Movement intention after parietal cortex stimulation in humans. - PubMed - NCBI

Free Will and Neuroscience: From Explaining Freedom Away to New Ways of Operationalizing and Measuring It Is a great article with the summary of all the research done on the topic.

Also, I find that you may be trying to corner me in a very "in bad faith method" with the confrontation of telling me I'm taking it on "faith"3. There's a difference between hope and faith. I think that should be clarified because I feel as if you're trying to equate these two.

For example,I hope (or sometimes said I have faith in) that my team will make it to the playoffs even though they are behind. This is clearly different then saying you have faith in the religious sense of the word.

 

[chileandawg]

Actually, liberty is a central theme throughout the New Testament, which focuses on an individual who spent his entire life defying an oppressive government, died defying it. But that wasn't wasn't my question.

No you are wrong,isnt liberty is the commoditys to speak exactly.

How much wine,sheeps,wifes,THAT is the aristotle'crematistic u know from ancient times history.

Got it?

 

[chileandawg]

This part is funny,ie when the matrixguy gives you the chance/choice xD

Libertarian freewill. No, we certainly do not have it. The idea of freewill itself doesn't make much sense to begin with. Especially the religious version of it. It's like they are saying "Of course we have freewill, the boss says so." Well, I suppose irony is hard to identify at times.

Sam Harris wrote a book on the subject.

Here is a quick rundown of his argument. I highly suggest his video and book on his view in its entirety.

 

[hurricane]

Believer in Evolution here.
Free will for sure, but our choices are guided by behaviour patterns we picked up over the last 100,000 plus years. We evolved to look out for our tribe so that they might also look out for us. We also lie, steal and cheat but have evolved to do this only to the extent we can get way with. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but over those 100,000s of years anyone who fucked over the tribe probably didnt get to spread their DNA.

And I respect your view bro. You're a very stand up guy who shows alot of respect towards those he even disagrees with.
For what it's worth that goes a long way with me.

 

[chileandawg]

Oh shit i mean CHREMATISTIC

 

[hurricane]

Actually, liberty is a central theme throughout the New Testament, which focuses on an individual who spent his entire life defying an oppressive government, died defying it. But that wasn't wasn't my question.

I always enjoy your posts. You're an intelligent dude who can see things from both sides of the aisle.
And didn't Locke say religion directly impacted morality? I don't know a ton about him besides his stance on currency.
I don't understand what @chileandawg posts most of the time. lol.
No offense man.

 

[chileandawg]

Easy brother im not offended but you are doing a mistake i have my personal point of of view.I dont play in two teams if u know what i mean.

Its not about morality itself.Its about the gains.Sounds like a joke.

But the most important thing to the man from old times is the happiness and this is an act,mainly.Not only a moral feeling.

This is my pragmatic view.

 

[hurricane]

Easy brother im not offended but you are doing a mistake i have my personal point of of view.I dont play in two teams if u know what i mean.

Its not about morality itself.Its about the gains.Sounds like a joke.

But the most important thing to the man from old times is the happiness and this is an act,mainly.Not only a moral feeling.

This is my pragmatic view.

You're completely entitled to your views man. I respect them even if we disagree.

 

[flenser]

That's a very unfair summary of his view. There's a great load of evidence pointing towards what Sam and I believe to be the truth. Though, I may tend to side with Daniel Dennetts view slightly more.
Free Will and Neuroscience: From Explaining Freedom Away to New Ways of Operationalizing and Measuring It
Movement intention after parietal cortex stimulation in humans. - PubMed - NCBI

Free Will and Neuroscience: From Explaining Freedom Away to New Ways of Operationalizing and Measuring It Is a great article with the summary of all the research done on the topic.

Thanks, that was an excellent read. I plan to read it again more slowly when I have the time. The common thread through the studies I read (I didn't get to them all) was the assumption that one's will is defined solely by the conscious mind - or more accurately that one has to make a conscious decision to act, then perform the act in order for that act to be a choice.

In every test the participants had already chosen to play and were given their instructions before the test began. Each clearly acted with a purpose (what I assume you meant by the libertarian definition of free will?). How does having the neurons involved in the task charging up ahead of conscious awareness make the choice any less free?

Also, I find that you may be trying to corner me in a very "in bad faith method" with the confrontation of telling me I'm taking it on "faith"

That wasn't my intention. I said ahead of time I have strong opinions, but I will leave it to you to decide if faith is the wrong word. Your initial response was very definite:

Libertarian freewill. No, we certainly do not have it. The idea of freewill itself doesn't make much sense to begin with. ...

I apologize if I'm taking that out of context.

3. There's a difference between hope and faith. I think that should be clarified because I feel as if you're trying to equate these two.

Why would you hope you lack free will? Do you maybe mean you believe free will is improbable? I'm slightly confused here, as your next sentence implies you really do mean hope.

For example,I hope (or sometimes said I have faith in) that my team will make it to the playoffs even though they are behind. This is clearly different then saying you have faith in the religious sense of the word.

 

[flenser]

I always enjoy your posts. You're an intelligent dude who can see things from both sides of the aisle.
And didn't Locke say religion directly impacted morality? I don't know a ton about him besides his stance on currency.
I don't understand what @chileandawg posts most of the time. lol.
No offense man.

Thanks, I do like to argue, but I try to leave room to concede with dignity if I suddenly realize I'm completely wrong. It seems to happen more often as I get older!

I'm by no means an expert on Locke. In my view religion often reflects the morals inherent in society and culture rather than the other way around. The rule book, the Bible for Christians, is often interpreted for the benefit of the interpreters, some parts stressed and others ignored.

 

[flenser]

No you are wrong,isnt liberty is the commoditys to speak exactly.

How much wine,sheeps,wifes,THAT is the aristotle'crematistic u know from ancient times history.

Got it?

Lol, I think so. I think I would get it with a few beers, anyway.