Skeptic134

Your argument has turned into semantics because now you are trying to differentiate luxurious needs from essential needs. The definition of need already assumes essential, why are you adding the adjective? The assertion that American production is due to wants and not needs because the citizens aren’t eating grasshoppers IMO isn’t a credible argument. But let’s examine it anyway. I would be interested in citations regarding the nutrition and calories of a grasshopper, how many will an average person need to eat a day. Will humans truly be receiving the proper vitamins, proteins, etc from an insect diet? What will happen to any industry related to food, farming, restaurants, etc and thus the economy and production? Will this be entirely counter to the original intent of the thread? You initially claimed that people “want” groceries as opposed to needing them, ok, people also will “want” to eat (insert insect) they won’t need too, because fundamentally we don’t “need” to eat, we just want too. It is an argument that just doesn’t get you anywhere.

I get your point about the subtle difference between wants and needs but I think your argument just turns things into semantics. After all, I don’t need to eat, I want too. I just need nutrients to enter my body and be metabolized. It would be much more efficient if I just used nutrient injections instead of relying on the messy process of food gathering, preparation, consumption, etc. And as such I disagree with the idea that production in America is because of wanting luxuries as opposed to needing necessities. Some of it is wants but to say none of it is due to needs I believe is merely a semantics argument. And this is why your argument isn't credible. Because people are going to grocery stores instead of eating grasshoppers American production is due to wants and not needs....

You are using the word evidence where it is inappropriate. You mentioned using the scientific method to explore and gain knowledge of the universe so we are talking about empirical evidence. Do you disagree with the following regarding empirical and scientific evidence? - acquired through observation or experimentation - results are repeatable by others - objective - falsifiability of the hypothesis being tested The classical logical arguments regarding an intelligent creator do not meet any of these elements. Personal feelings of how the universe seems isn’t sufficient to be considered evidence; you are assuming the universe is the result of intelligence, you aren’t following any evidence to that conclusion. Exactly. If you perform an experiment to test gravity the evidence supports gravity not that an intelligent being created gravity.

Now you are invoking the Cosmological argument. None of the classical logical arguments for a creator are evidence; they don’t meet the criteria of what defines evidence, specifically empirical evidence. Just like with the Teleological argument, the Cosmological argument just begs the question of what was the cause of the previous cause. Because you want to draw the line after you’ve posited one creator doesn’t make it sound to be content and stop following the logical progression into oblivion. It is an assumptive non-answer. A first cause argument isn’t evidence of an intelligent creator.

Ok so you are saying the intelligent source is the subjective part but then you turn around and say you have concrete evidence of an intelligent source... How is an intelligent source both subjective but there is concrete evidence of the intelligent source?

Describe an experiment to test the hypothesis that an intelligent creator is the ultimate source of existence. What is a prediction you can make based solely on the assumption that an intelligent creator is the source of existence?

Striving to understand the universe by acquiring knowledge through scientific means is a great goal but I don’t understand the last part “while keeping faith in the source”. That doesn’t mean anything to me and actual is a little counter to the first part of the goal. If you are striving to acquire knowledge empirically then you shouldn’t also be keeping faith in something that is merely an assumption. You say that for you fine tuning is great evidence, but how? Evidence, specifically scientific evidence, is empirical, repeatable, observable and it shouldn’t matter who is looking at the evidence it should look the same. How does a personal subjective feel that the universe is fine tuned meet any of those criteria? Knowledge and understanding of reality isn’t gained by making assumptions instead of following the evidence. I've never seen the original Cosmos, I need too find it. I hear it was very good (better than the recent one).

There are definitely people that enjoy what they do or feel pride in what they do, no question. I’m not sure how many would do it for free though, volunteers exist but people also need to pay bills. I love being an engineer, solving problems and feeling like what I do matters but I’m not going to do it for free, I might take less pay (don’t tell my boss) but I have bills too My initial post might have been too vague, I’ll clarify. I don't think money is the sole motivation of why people work, but I feel it is definitely one of the motivations and for some people and certain jobs the largest or possibly the sole motivation. Some people are self motivators no doubt but I do feel that money is a big motivator for a lot of people especially in a consumerist culture.

If the government is able to continue to only provide the minimum in terms of food, shelter, and access to medicine for all than I suppose there is no reason that both a healthy economy and a minimally altruistic society can't prevail. That is a big if though, government always seems to naturally grow and continually expand “services”. The system won’t suddenly make the poor (the ones requiring the altruism) productive because they suddenly have their basic needs met. It also won’t suddenly make those that are not dependent on the government subsidy to become more productive. If the minimum altruistic provisions increase over time it will erode the healthy economy because the minimum provided for merely being alive will slowly equal and then surpass what at one point required trading production (work) to receive.

What about language beyond verbal and body language? We are the only species to create a complex written language which would seem to be a necessary next step in order to progress and create the scientific method. If you cannot record anything how do you begin to build upon previous generations discoveries and experiences? Also, the information density of our language seems far and above any other examples.

Some of those (agriculture, civilization, education) stem from science but language on the other hand... without language could science exist? Language and science seem equally "best idea ever" IMO.

You are assuming that the only variable in the productivity equation is how well off people are, which is clearly incomplete. There is much more to the productivity levels of different countries than how many poor people and how many rich people there are. To conclude that because the regions with the highest concentration of poor people aren't the most productive that financial compensation isn't a motivation for labor/work is erroneous.

So which is the largest difference? The environmental differences or the genetic differences? I believe the genetic differences are greater, from the basics of gender, eye color, hair color and complexion to variations in height, athleticism and strengths in different academic fields and interests. Also, the varied predisposition for certain health issues in childhood between siblings indicates clear differences in genetics. These are mostly genetic differences that present themselves physically, clearly they aren't the only ones, what about the biochemical differences that effect our brains and thus emotions etc. It isn't to say environment doesn't play a huge role in outcomes but genetics clearly do as well and in the case of siblings raised in the same household and only 1-2 years apart in age. Hence why I believe it is a combination of environment and genetic predisposition that leads to religious belief.

Exactly, why add the massive assumption of the infinite intelligent source. Carl Sagan had a pretty eloquent explanation of this point.

Any sources showing the productivity comparisons you are claiming? I want to make sure I understand what you are saying; could you define what "economic stability" means to you? Based on your claim that money isn't the reason for human productivity and that productivity would not suffer if everyone had "economic stability" I interpret that to mean you believe people would continue to "produce" without any need for financial reward. Perhaps that isn't what you mean to say.

No, perceived fine tuning is not evidence. The teleological argument is not real evidence even if apologist like to make that claim.

I would say the opposite. My siblings and I shared the same indoctrination (environment) but while we had the same parents our genetics are not of course completely the same as we have many differences in our personalities.

Ideas built upon strong reproduceable evidence is what I find meaningful. I've always believed that what makes an idea strong and worthwhile isn't how impossible it is to test but how much scrutiny it has withstood. Therefore, I find little use for deism, pantheism or any other flavor of personal definition of god. They are nothing more than a small subset of the nearly infinite number of untestable, inscrutable concepts based purely on assumption.

Do you see that the idea that a creating intelligence is required due to perceived fine tuning only begs the question of what fine tuned the fine tuner?

I disagree. I think we are creatures that inherently need motivation and that there are many jobs that are done solely because people require the money to sustain their lives.

So you are invoking the Teleological argument in your defense?

Not true. I was curious to hear your explanation but my curiosity is slowly being replaced by indifference; I've never been much for bloviation.

Therein lies the problem. If you are asserting that an intelligent source created the universe than you are doing so with no evidence to back up the belief and you are immediately a victim of an infinite regression problem. Why make an assumption(deism/intelligent creator) prior to have any evidence to support the claim?

Deepak? But seriously, you appear to present the concept of god as just the beauty, symmtery and totallity of existence in one instance but then use the word creator. Are you suggesting intelligence behind the creation?

When you say god you are referring to a Spinoza god... merely the appreciation of the beauty of the universe or do you mean to use the capitalized god which suggests theism. If the later than no, there is no evidence, unless you've found some you would like to present.