Can anyone counter these arguments for the existence/lack of of a deity/God/Intelligent Designer?

Question

I've been very much interested in the existence (or lack thereof) of a deity Up There, and how life…the Earth…the Universe began, starting when I was in elementary school. But I only recently began browsing the topic on the net, and I've found very interesting arguments for both sides. So, I'd like to put out some of those ideas, and a few of my own, to see if they can be successfully countered. I've tried to research as many of these arguments as well as I could, to make sure non of them completely idiotic, but I'm sure some if them will make no sense to at least a few. Anyway, here are my, and others', points, for both sides:

1) Can someone explain how the whole "Shem, Ham, and Japheth=Every ethnicity on Earth, including Oriental, Native American, and, well, the list goes on…"?

On that note: If Noah was a descendant of Adam and Eve, and *everyone* is a descendant of Noah, then...incest?

.....

Answer 1

Don't think so much. The more you think, the further separated from reality you become. We see the world in duality, hot/cold, life/death, night/day etc. etc. We can't see both sides of the coin at once. The problems aren't with "god" but with our limited perspective and linear concept of time. Try some buddhism, unites mind and "no mind". Good luck.

Answer 2

there is no why, it just is. (sorry I just got done reading slaughterhouse five)

Answer 3

1) This type of argument is a logical fallacy if it is used to support the existence of a theistic god.

2) Likely the reason you are undecided is because theistic arguments of intelligent design never supply the bridge between the possible designer and the deity of their brand of religion.

In other words there is simply no reason outside of that particular religions holy text to say that the intelligent designer is in fact the god of a particular religion. For instance Odin could have been the intelligent designer.  Because the gap is never bridged you still have to make a leap of fallacy if you want to believe in a particular religion.

3) Actually it is only convenient for those that lose wonder in all there is that humanity has yet learn about existence and the nature of our own being.

4) This is not the theory of big bang.

Big bang does not postulate what if anything existed prior to the universe only how the universe came into form after its existence.

In other words big bang is the theory of how a small hot universe expanded and cooled off.

In the early universe three of the foundemental forces of nature exist as singular super force as implied by guage symetry.

As the universe cooled and expanded these forces began to diverge and the coalesence of matter starts to take place, gravity is space-time curveture and will grow in strength as mass increases deeping the severity of impingement upon its fabric. Primal matter consisted of only light elements that accumulate to form stars, stars in turn form fission factories that create heavier elements, like those produced by supernovas.

Heavy elements like iron at the core of our planet are subject to the force of gravity is weaker as you move away from the earths center resulting in less pressure and that means that the temperatures that result from the close quaters of the very active atoms under pressure are sufficient to cause the metal to liquify because of thermo-radition. As pressure increases the amount of thermo energy needed to convert a solid into liquid also increases and so the core remains solid despite the extreme heat because of thermodynamics in the form of boyles law.

Acording to Drakes equation the probility of life comming to exists is very high given the vast amount of likely life favoring conditions that the observable cosmos yeilds, even if we apply modest figures. Evolution has made post and predictions that have been empirically observed hence the reason this theory will not simply go away. Creation science did not even exist prior to the theory of evolution.

5) Heaven is used as the one of the prime motivators for divine command theories of ethics, such theories have been debunked and one need only be rational and study philosophy to see why this theory is so weak as to be considered absurd.

Answer 4

I'm a bit lazy right now so I will be brief and limited.

for 2) "if there is creation, is there a creator..."

Well, this statement, used by creationists is somewhat of a slippery slope. If one asserts "there is a creator," then is begs the question of "why does it have to be a BEING?" Why not a physical law or phenomena that we don't understand. In other words, why must we impute creation to an anthropomorphic, emotional, intimate, all-loving, all-knowing, convenient drive-thru, biblical god?

Basically, the creationist argument is a sack of S**t. Creationists use bad logic to smuggle god into "proof."

Also, another point I would like to add about the story of Noah is this: it is borrowed from previous legend, much like many other chrisitian fables (like the virgin mother).

I won't get specific, but almost the entire story of christianity is just borrowed from a previous tradition that has NOTHING to do with christianity.

The pillars of christianity are politcs, not spirituality. you can never trust politics, even the politics of god.

good luck

Answer 5

The word "somehow" blows all purely scientific conjecture out of the water.  If they're attempting to explain how life or anything else can exist without God, the term "somehow" is not permissible.  They're offering explanations.  Somehow means they don't know.  That can only lead to a diety.  Call him/her whatever you want, but it's the only way.  Scienctists are not allowed to use the word "somehow" unless researching a heretofore unknown phenomenon.  Creation is not unknown.  We'd be talking about a new discovery here, not something millions or billions of years old already.  It all comes back to a diety.

Answer 6

What people forget is that the Old Testament is the story of one group of people on this planet. Many others survived the flood which did not encompass the whole world. Nice legend tho'.  

In your quest to find the roots of creation, you will find that a creator is not necessary. Things are because they can be. Only those things expressly forbidden, cannot be. In other words, if the conditions exist that something may occur, it will occur. Otherwise it is forbidden to occur. That is what creation is all about. Things and situations exist because they can and therefore must exist.

The other thing you will find is that simple moves to complex until the complex 'appears' to be chaotic. Chaos is nothing more than complexity that exceeds the limited parameters of order. To really understand the Universe bone up on Emergent Theory. It will enlighten you greatly.

To comprehend the descent of man check out Human Migration on the web. The work leading geneticists have done recently has been very enlightening.

Answer 7

Try not to think of it much. Nobody really knows until they get there. So don't burden yourself with that. Just live your life until it's gone. By the way, I was also thinking of living forever.

And I also believe that would very boring.

Answer 8

Questioning everything--that's what its all about. But then its also about putting the answers (if they arise) back together again. Thats not easy. The way its done, though, is to start out with deductive reasoning and make that reasoning (matching  up data with the reasoning) agree with what has been inductively  reasoned to be the facts-the empirical evidence. You've got a lot of empirical evidence in your introductory remarks, but as mitheo.. has pointed out, that evidence is not very scientific. However, I'm not implying that your own reasoning has to be based in science, but your reasoning should at least explain a good deal of the data that has been established by the methods of science.  The bottom line is (this is a self-affirmation of my own belief system) to come up with your own belief system based on your best answers to your own questions and then a belief system that must be self-evident and consistent (meaning no contradictions), and then do exactly what you are doing--As you say,  "I'd like to put out some of those ideas, and a few of my own, to see if they can be successfully countered." Keep an open mind and evaluate the results. That's all anybody can do. Good luck.

Answer 9

Read the Bible again and you will never get your answers.

Answer 10

When it comes to personal beliefs of the great beyond, you've got to realize that it's impossible to know for sure. Anything you "know" - any idea you come across - comes from a number of other sources before they get to you.

I don't believe in any judeo-christian religion simply because they were all conceived of the minds of men, which could never comprehend something like what they seem to be trying to describe.

I agree about trying buddhism. One should not live one's life for fear of some posthumous retribution. Better to seek the simple beauty in every waking moment.

I for one, will not follow any god who would d**n me for an eternity of pain for losing my way.

Answer 11

I have little time so I will try to answr the first question.

Shem and his decendants correspond to oriental peoples (sorry I do not recall the anthropological term), and also to old north middle east peoples such as Arameans.

The Bible also tells us that the decendants of Japheth inhabited the islands for instance, and when we look at Europe from the standpoint of the Middle East we see the greek isles and the various peninsulas of Europe corresponding to the description of islands.

Various decendants of Ham inhabited the Middle East and Africa, Philistines are one branch of Mizraim (Egyptian).  The speakers of Khoi San languages are decendants of one branch of Ham, the various groups of Africa are mostly decendants of various branches of Ham, I believe the Ancient Egyptians were actually of the N*groid type (this is the standard anthropological term), regardless of skin color at that time, though there is evidence that the earliest many of them were black, some red or brown skin.

It is known that the islands of polynesia are very mixed in racial type, this diversity has resulted from mixing of the many types (there was more than one type from Ham and more than one type from Shem), Quechua of south America look oriental, their phonology resembles Chinese phonology, Chinese traveled to the New world long before Colombus is know a known fact.  Ojibwa look oriental of North America.  There are also various types of native american and they have resulted from mixing, but are probably mainly asian, though certainly from different types mixed.  One man who is native american from an island was found to have a corresponding mitochondria dna to a woman in Greece, that they both had a common ancestral mother long ago.

So there were many types listed when over 60 dialects were listed in Gen. 10 or 11, and that was written when there were thousands of people, possibly tens of thousands of people (I have not done the math, but it was certainly at this time in the thousands).

Answer 12

The ethno-national descriptions corresponding to the biblical "Table of Nations" of Gen. 10 regarding the descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japeth do not actually include "Asians" or Indigenous Americans, or others.

Shem = Semites

Ham = those formerly called "Hamites."

Now we know that those referred to as Hamites and Semites are smaller ethno-linguistic groups within the larger Afro-Asiatic ethno-language family.

Japeth = Indo-Europeans (formerly called Indo-Aryans; Hitler and his cronies ruined the term "Aryan" but "Indo-Aryan" is still used to refer to the peoples of Iran, India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc...

The authors of the biblical narratives did not know the earth was round; they did not know about Chinese, Japanese, Indigenous Americans, Australians, etc... This is why they are, quite simply, not included in the "Table of Nations."

People can try to make them fit into this biblical narrative, but it never will.

The circle cannot go into the square hole.