Can you please disprove these…..?

Question

1: Science gives us a way to distinguish between good ideas and bad ideas - i.e. to show which explanation is the most consistent with observable reality. Science shows us that great complexity does not just arise spontaneously. It is inconceivable that even the simplest bacterium could exist without something being responsible for the complexity of its structure, its biochemistry and so on. It would take the lifetimes of a billion universes for it to appear spontaneously, by pure chance - in fact it is probably safe to say that it simply could never happen. This goes all the more for human beings. It's surely no coincidence that the only thing that we regard as truly intelligent - the human brain - is also the most complex thing in the known universe. Intelligence requires enormous complexity, far beyond anything that could conceivably exist without something being responsible for its existence. By the same reasoning, it's infinitely more unlikely still that an intelligent entity capable of designing and creating an entire universe and everything in it could just exist from nowhere, from nothing, without anything being responsible for its existence. Complexity, and especially the massive complexity required for intelligence, can therefore only arise from an antecedent, non-intelligent process - In the case of life on Earth, this means biological evolution, a fact which is attested to by a vast amount of real objective evidence and valid argument. So, to the extent that science allows us to reliably distinguish between plausible ideas and implausible ideas, it effectively rules out the possibility of an intelligent entity as the uncaused cause of everything that exists.

Answer 1

Those are a lot cannots for someone that attempts to sound scientifically minded.



1)The logic you are using is flawed. To say something intelligent must arise from something not intelligent has no bearing on an entity that always was due to the lack of arising.

2)Free will

3) If nothingness can not exist what existed before anything existed?

4) Although morality can be seen to be subjective if this were true and there was no core morality or truth that went beyond our subjective opinion that the subjectivity would ultimately be the undoing of morality in itself. This didn't change what actions are right or wrong but merely change the definition of morality.

5) Lack of a proper basis to identify created items doesn't nullify the concept of a creator it points out the inabilty of the viewer to identify criteria. (I don't like the creator argument anyway)

6) Who says that anything that holds knowledge needs to have parts. Just because we haven't seen it yet does not mean it is impossible.

7) Absolute proof of God would negate free will once you are certain of a being such as God you would have no choice but to serve and therefore God would be then retracting the gift of free will with giving this absolute proof.

8) All necessitate the passage of time according to human knowledge all of which is viewed by an entity subject to time and then basis to perceive all other to thing to be bound by it as well.

9) Not really. Science, logic and reason and neither prove nor disprove Gods existence.  

Answer 2

1) Science is only as good as the explanations that we have, and if there were a being responsible for all existence, it's possible that a being that intelligent could be on an entirely higher level of comprehension than we're capable of.  The argument presented here implies that because ants can't understand how we use the internet, the internet does not exist.

2) Human evil can and will exist, because of the concept of free will.

3) Stumped me there.

4) I won't disprove that, since I happen to agree.

5) That argument doesn't even hold up if you believe in evolution.  You can't tell the difference between a rock and an airplane?

6) What?

7)  No where near true.  That's like saying that if you had magical powers to make someone fall in love with you, you would.  Most people want the person they love to GENUINELY love them back.  

8) I'm guessing by now that 'said deity' is Yahveh, or God, and he is subject to the passage of time.  How would he have created the world using days to mark it, set punishments on the House of Israel and the House of Judah, and be planning his return without the passage of time?

9) Please refer to answer number 1.

I know that I didn't answer that to your satisfaction... but who could?  I think that's why your theories were all presented as verbosely as possible.

Answer 3

Dissect your question into smaller bits if you ever hope to get anyone thinking.

Now they can just ignore important points and focus on those passages that they can argue against.

Answer 4

Thank you for your Dissertation sir, the board will review further. You are definitely an interesting PHD candidate.

Is that what you wanted to hear. You logically proved your point to yourself. You left out a very important aspect that many in the religious world hold close to them. It's called FAITH.  

Answer 5

Sounds like you are just being argumentative for the sake of it to me. You want people to try and disprove your theories so that you can argue the point with them when really you could just leave everyone to their own devices and let them believe what they want. Are you next going to go to a kindergarten and give the children the hard evidence on why there can be no Santa? Personally I don't believe in God but I like to leave all the elderly people and terminally ill with a little hope that there will be something after they die.

Answer 6

I am not gonna read all of this, thanks.