Does God exist? (11 Viewers)

[Phoenix Fury]

No God, at all...ever
gg

Jesus, now that's a different question but divine, just as divine as my ass.

 

[KFunk]

The human body isn't designed for long-term meat consumption because natural selection basically stops dead after 30 in humans, which is the start of when things like cancer and disease begin causing problems.

Grandmother Hypothesis?

Sorry but for this I have to call BS. We have guts and digestive processes (as well as teeth) designed for processing plant AND animal matter as efficiently as possible.

Past adaptations don't have to prove beneficial in all other contexts. Medicine is full of examples of biological tendencies which fair poorly with novel lifestyles, e.g. the way our penchant for fats and sugars puts us at risk of a general metabolic syndrome in a situation in which we have these things 'on tap' (just walk into any city corner store). That we are adapted to eat/want/process certain foods does not ensure that pursuing such foods is the best course of action (environments change! and, as Slidey mentioned, we are living longer).

 

[Kwayera]

Past adaptations don't have to prove beneficial in all other contexts. Medicine is full of examples of biological tendencies which fair poorly with novel lifestyles, e.g. the way our penchant for fats and sugars puts us at risk of a general metabolic syndrome in a situation in which we have these things 'on tap' (just walk into any city corner store). That we are adapted to eat/want/process certain foods does not ensure that pursuing such foods is the best course of action (environments change! and, as Slidey mentioned, we are living longer).

I don't doubt that (hence my comments in another thread on epigenetics), but in this case there is no evidence (as far as my admittedly brief perusal of the library's large science journal cohort) that longevity past 30 is affected by one's consumption of meat.

BTW I am always happy to be proven wrong, so please do attach references!

 

[KFunk]

A spread of results from Medline for all who are interested (I should point out that I suspect that the 2nd study, looking at 7th day adventists, does the best job of controlling for relevant lifestyle factors). There are a lot more available if you search (Vegetarian, Diet) & (Mortality):

Key TJ. Appleby PN. Rosell MS. Health effects of vegetarian and vegan diets. [Review] [65 refs] [Journal Article. Review] Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 65(1):35-41, 2006 Feb.

"Cohort studies of vegetarians have shown a moderate reduction in mortality from IHD but little difference in other major causes of death or all-cause mortality in comparison with health-conscious non-vegetarians from the same population. Studies of cancer have not shown clear differences in cancer rates between vegetarians and non-vegetarians... Overall, the data suggest that the health of Western vegetarians is good and similar to that of comparable non-vegetarians."

Fraser GE. Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists. [Journal Article. Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.] American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 70(3 Suppl):532S-538S, 1999 Sep.

"The lifetime risk of IHD was reduced by approximately 31% in those who consumed nuts frequently and by 37% in male vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians. Cancers of the colon and prostate were significantly more likely in nonvegetarians (RR of 1.88 and 1.54, respectively), and frequent beef consumers also had higher risk of bladder cancer. Intake of legumes was negatively associated with risk of colon cancer in nonvegetarians and risk of pancreatic cancer. Higher consumption of all fruit or dried fruit was associated with lower risks of lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancers. Cross-sectional data suggest vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists have lower risks of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and arthritis than nonvegetarians. Thus, among Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are healthier than nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the absence of meat."


Appleby PN. Thorogood M. Mann JI. Key TJ. The Oxford Vegetarian Study: an overview. [Comparative Study. Journal Article. Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't] American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 70(3 Suppl):525S-531S, 1999 Sep.

"After adjusting for smoking, body mass index, and social class, death rates were lower in non-meat-eaters than in meat eaters for each of the mortality endpoints studied [relative risks and 95% CIs: 0.80 (0. 65, 0.99) for all causes of death, 0.72 (0.47, 1.10) for ischemic heart disease, and 0.61 (0.44, 0.84) for all malignant neoplasms."


Key TJ. Fraser GE. Thorogood M. Appleby PN. Beral V. Reeves G. Burr ML. Chang-Claude J. Frentzel-Beyme R. Kuzma JW. Mann J. McPherson K. Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies. [Comparative Study. Journal Article. Meta-Analysis. Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't] American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 70(3 Suppl):516S-524S, 1999 Sep.

"Mortality from ischemic heart disease was 24% lower in vegetarians than in nonvegetarians (death rate ratio: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.62, 0.94; P<0.01).... There were no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, or all other causes combined."

 

[BradCube]

Look at the part I quoted in italics. It doesn't really say a lot to claim that a person can make a number of different choices provided that they are backed up by a sufficient line of reasoning for each kind of choice. It seems kind of like saying that a person can make a number of different choices provided that their experiences in the last 24 hours differ appropriately. Sure, in these counterfactual situations a person may end up willing something different (as a result of having slightly different memories or a different line of reasoning). You have to note, however, that you are speaking in conditional terms: "as long as they can" --> i.e. if they can (insert capacity... ) then free will is made possible.

The problem, then, is that I don't think you have established that it is possible for a person to reason differently than they do. Here debates about dualism/materialism enter the picture because if we are working with a hard, computational materialism then it would seem that reasoning is deterministic and I'm not sure what room there is for a 'free' capacity of reason. Essentially I feel that the arguments I have provided against a 'free' will similarly apply to a 'free' faculty of reason (and so I'm not sure how introducing such a faculty saves your concept of free will?). Counterfactual conditionals are all well and good but unless you can show that the antecendent holds (or at least that it is possible, if you even want to keep your position tenable) then I don't think you have made much of a case.

I think I actually pretty much agree with everything you have said here. My last point of resolve lies in the fact that we both recognize that individuals have the capability of making either choice when presented with a decision. Now whilst I recognize that they may be prone to choosing one choice over another we enter a tricky territory when we started interweaving morality in with the decision making process.

We have situations where we know what we "should" do but instead choose otherwise. So in this way, despite the individual recognizing what they believe is the right or most correct choice, they still choose to do otherwise.

I think our original point in bringing up free will (way back) was in discussion of how you don't believe in objective morality since we don't have free will? I would suggest that our inner consciousness and sense of morality is reason to think that free will does exist - since we can freely choose other than what we believe we should be choosing. Hope that makes sense enough - seems we may be at a dead end in our beliefs?

Yes and no. Yes, in so far as I don't think a debate will eventually reveal the Truth (capital 'T'). On the other hand, I'm not sure why the debate should be seen as entirely meaningless if our claims aren't objective. Is discussion of music, artwork, literature or music meaningless? What about preferred film genres or individuals we find most attractive? Even if we acknowledge that aesthetic, or preference based, claims within such kinds of discourse are never objectively true, but are instead statements of preference, we do not therefore debase the discourse to the point of being meaningless. We're not just talking past one another.

Interestingly enough I would probably throw preference in film genre and attractive individuals into the meaningless discussion basket too. The reason we find music, artwork or literature worthwhile for discussion is because we believe that they hold some value and meaningfulness. Discussing preferences in morality when you ultimate regard that morality as having no real meaning still appears to be meaning less to me. I mean essentially, if we look at an entirely naturalistic approach to the creation and existance of everything there is no meaning or actual value in anything beyond what we have decided is meaningful (which again, is of no real meaning). Everything is simply cause and reaction of different elements.

This, isn't to say that such discussions are boring - I certainly don't think that is the case. If however, there is no such thing as objective morality, then yes, I would hold that discussions of moral preference are ultimately meaningless.

Think of the importance of conflict resolution. Even if two parties hold contrary values they can still seek a compromise. It is often quite enlightening to learn and talk about values and how they differ, especially if we are to try to live in harmony and seek some kind of peaceful equilibrium (or as close to one as possible). So sure, while a claim like 'causing pain is wrong' has an element of meaningless I still think debates of this sort can be quite useful. Understanding is valuable.

The importance of conflict resolution implies that conflict resolution has some value and meaning. I think you would find that this leads back to a case of what you believe is "right" and "wrong". The same goes for the claim that understanding is valuable.

Now certainly, I actually do believe that conflict resolution and understanding are very worth while - but this comes from someone talking with a belief in objective morality.

 

[Slidey]

I speak from genuine ignorant incredulity here, I'm sorry, but which chemicals cause bone degradation (I would have thought that the calcium content of meat near the bone would mitigate that) and DNA mutations?

What do you think causes cancer? It is almost exclusively DNA mutation. Bone degradation is a common phenomenon for diets with excessive amounts of iron; iron and calcium are competitively absorbed. Even without iron competition, calcium alone won't prevent bone degradation. It's currently unknown exactly why meat consumption causes bone problems, however.

An example of two chemical causes of cancer due to red meat:
Nitrosation
Heterocyclic amines

More about bone problems and cancer influenced by red meat consumption found below in the studies you requested.

Sorry but for this I have to call BS. We have guts and digestive processes (as well as teeth) designed for processing plant AND animal matter as efficiently as possible. There is no evidence to suggest that people are more negatively affected by a diet including meat past that age, unless I'm missing something.

If you want. It's a fairly self-obvious part of evolutionary theory though: once an organism passes peak reproductive period, requirement for selective advantage starts to fall rapidly to zero, meaning things which confer a selective advantage in early life (such as eating meat in the wild) have no requirement of such a selective advantage in later life.

Remember the definition of fitness in an evolutionary context is reproductive fitness, not fitness for prolonged survival or good health.

This applies to both males and females, for while males may continue being able to produce sperm for most of their lives, the older a male gets past 40, the harder it becomes to attract members of the opposite sex capable of reproducing kids. In general the age at which people have kids is incredibly skewed to between 15 and 25, and has been for most of humanity's evolution. Not to mention that for most of humanity's evolution, the life expectancy has been below 40 years of age.

Basically: the human body was never designed to contend with the health risks of meat in later life.

I don't doubt that (hence my comments in another thread on epigenetics), but in this case there is no evidence (as far as my admittedly brief perusal of the library's large science journal cohort) that longevity past 30 is affected by one's consumption of meat.

You don't think cancer, heart disease, diabetes or bone problems affect life expectancy after 30?

BTW I am always happy to be proven wrong, so please do attach references!

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/3/532S
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4065433.stm
http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/96/11.14.96/osteoporosis.html
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/9/2108?etoc
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/75/5/507
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/24/1664
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/109856795/PDFSTART
http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/44/suppl_4/iv14.pdf
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/109856792/ABSTRACT
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/143/5/472
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a785830491
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/10/5/559

Forgive me if I have linked to the same article twice. I don't think I have, but sometimes different sites give a different abstract for the same article and the numbers become a familiar blur.

It's an area which certainly requires more research to completely eliminate confounding factors and verify things like mode of action, but the evidence so far is far from ambiguous.

For the record: I'm not too overly concerned about moral imperatives. I just love talking biology.

 

[BradCube]

Why would the discussion be rendered meaningless? Eat less meat, live longer, have healthier babies; it's an advantage to the future evolution of the persons bloodline as well as a future advantage for the individual, so theres plenty of incentive to not eat meat without any form of morality even coming into question.

Does this not assume that life and its longevity has some value and meaning?

And yes, ID will have a negative spin anywhere you read about it, unless it is from a creationist website. If you take an objective view on it, you will take into account the overwhelming rejection of it by the scientific community, and there's your negative spin.
To believe in ID, you really have to admit you're basing it on faith rather than fact

Ok, so the response I got from you guys is can basically be summed up as: Intelligent Design has a negative spin on it because it = teh stoopid

 

[Slidey]

Grandmother Hypothesis?

That reminds me of how creationists mistakenly claim evolution is only a hypothesis. Or at least they try to, but end up calling it a theory instead (as though that's meant to be a bad thing in science).

But yes, that's roughly what I'm talking about. I don't agree with that article on some small details, however it essentially encapsulates the phenomenon I am describing..

 

[*yooneek*]

I'm only just coming in mid-way- I realise that, so forgive me if i repeat anything or misunderstand the point...

In reply to HalcyonSky:
Intelligent design is not a substitute for ignorance. It is based on scientific evidence- not on biblical creationism. A person does not even need to believe in God to infer intelligent design in nature; otherwise prominent atheist Antony Flew couldn't have been persuaded that the evidence in nature points to design.

 

[Slidey]

Ok, so the response I got from you guys is can basically be summed up as: Intelligent Design has a negative spin on it because it = teh stoopid

Pretty much. We don't really give much credence to concepts claiming to be science without making any reference to the scientific method. Neither do the courts or the Pope (but since you follow ID, I'm guessing you're either protestant, evangelical, or non-denominational).

So yes, basically our response can be summed up as: Intelligent Design = teh stoopid for this, this, this and these reasons.

I'm only just coming in mid-way- I realise that, so forgive me if i repeat anything or misunderstand the point...

In reply to HalcyonSky:
Intelligent design is not a substitute for ignorance. It is based on scientific evidence- not on biblical creationism. A person does not even need to believe in God to infer intelligent design in nature; otherwise prominent atheist Antony Flew couldn't have been persuaded that the evidence in nature points to design.

Really? What scientific evidence? This claim is made time and time again, but inevitably no "scientific evidence" is ever produced.

And yes, a person does need to believe in an intelligent creator to believe in Intelligent Design. I do believe that's the definition of Intelligent Design, no?

And nobody really cares what a "prominent person" thinks; this isn't about a cult of personality. Not to mention that there are many reasons people can be persuaded of fallacies. I personally believe the book 1984 is an excellent introduction to this topic. You can also read about literature on cults, which often used brainwashing techniques to make people believe lies. Yet another explanation is a mental break - insanity. He could also have simply been lying. So indeed there are in fact many reasons why "a prominent atheist" could have been "persuaded that the evidence in nature points to design".

In fact I rather enjoy your used of the word 'persuade' there. Why not prove it instead? That's immeasurably stronger.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Intelligent design is not a substitute for ignorance. It is based on scientific evidence- not on biblical creationism. A person does not even need to believe in God to infer intelligent design in nature; otherwise prominent atheist Antony Flew couldn't have been persuaded that the evidence in nature points to design.

Antony Flew aside, I agree that the evidence in nature points to design... bottom-up design.

 

[Trampoline Man]

I'm only just coming in mid-way- I realise that, so forgive me if i repeat anything or misunderstand the point...

In reply to HalcyonSky:
Intelligent design is not a substitute for ignorance. It is based on scientific evidence- not on biblical creationism. A person does not even need to believe in God to infer intelligent design in nature; otherwise prominent atheist Antony Flew couldn't have been persuaded that the evidence in nature points to design.

Wouldn't make too much of Flew's "conversion":

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=stenger_25_2

 

[BradCube]

Neither do the courts or the Pope (but since you follow ID, I'm guessing you're either protestant, evangelical, or non-denominational).
.....
And nobody really cares what a "prominent person" thinks; this isn't about a cult of personality. Not to mention that there are many reasons people can be persuaded of fallacies.

I get so lost in some of your comments slidey. You claim that it does not matter what a prominent person thinks (and I agree with this, although there points could be very valid), and use the courts and the pope as an example in why intelligent design can be dismissed?

In fact I rather enjoy your used of the word 'persuade' there. Why not prove it instead? That's immeasurably stronger.

I imagine, 'persuade' was used rather than proved since neither the atheist nor the theist can prove their belief empirically.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

use the courts and the pope as an example in why intelligent design can be dismissed

The courts and the pope having good reasons behind them... To say they've been rejected by the vatican and the courts is not to say they are wrong because that authority says so, but to point out that strong logical/theological arguments have been made against accepting the theory.

 

[BradCube]

The courts and the pope having good reasons behind them... To say they've been rejected by the vatican and the courts is not to say they are wrong because that authority says so, but to point out that strong logical/theological arguments have been made against accepting the theory.

And this line of logic could be applied to whatever prominent person you are talking about. Still though, just stating that they do believe something is not proof. The proof is in why they believe what they do.

 

[Slidey]

I get so lost in some of your comments slidey. You claim that it does not matter what a prominent person thinks (and I agree with this, although there points could be very valid), and use the courts and the pope as an example in why intelligent design can be dismissed?

To Catholics, the Pope is the 'voice' of God. Since Catholics comprise the majority of the world's Christians, it certainly matters what the Pope thinks - not because I attribute him any special mental clarity, but because billions (about 1/6 of the world) of Catholics in the world do - about half of all Christians. He is not a tool for proof, but a can be a tool for conveying the truth.

I also attribute special status to courts because the judicial process is in many ways similar to the scientific process. It is especially worthy of note that the courts only accept something as scientific theory if it follows the scientific method. The courts are merely further supporting evidence that Intelligent Design does not follow the scientific method.

I imagine, 'persuade' was used rather than proved since neither the atheist nor the theist can prove their belief empirically.

Incorrect. Science is all about empirical proof. Evolution is proved empricially repeatedly. Intelligent Design on the other hand has not provided any adequate empirical proof.

Intelligent Design has nothing to do with science; it cannot be used to prove science, and it cannot be proved using science. In comparison, evolution is constantly used to prove scientific hypotheses, and evolution can be proved using the scientific method.

It's actually worth noting that unlike many aspects of science, evolution extends beyond simply being scientific theory by virtue of the fact that it is a mathematical optimisation technique; we can prove most aspects of evolution completely in mathematical simulation models.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Of course stronger arguments will be made on the basis of the actual facts, but I'm more than willing for instance to use the position of the british medical association when arguing about medical matters... I do think that a prominent person can help support a theory in a minor way, after all in the end the scientific method just leaves us with many prominent people coming to consensus, but to say that because one prominent person accepts it is really nothing special...

For instance let's say 99% of prominent atheists disagree with him, he would seem to be an insignificant statistical anomaly like evolution denialists.

 

[BradCube]

To Catholics, the Pope is the 'voice' of God. Since Catholics comprise the majority of the world's Christians, it certainly matters what the Pope thinks - not because I attribute him any special mental clarity, but because billions (about 1/6 of the world) of Catholics in the world do - about half of all Christians. He is not a tool for proof, but a can be a tool for conveying the truth.

I also attribute special status to courts because the judicial process is in many ways similar to the scientific process. It is especially worthy of note that the courts only accept something as scientific theory if it follows the scientific method. The courts are merely further supporting evidence that Intelligent Design does not follow the scientific method.

If I raised a point that said 1/2 of the worlds atheists follow what one atheist believes then does this mean that whatever that person says on a topic is authoritative or conveys truth? Not to mention the fact many of those atheists don't actively pursue their belief (or Catholics in the underlying example, that don't actively pursue Christianity).

Are you honestly claiming that what a court has ruled in one case, makes it an authoritative case on the whole issue? Again, I think you would hardly be putting forward this position if the shoe was on the other foot. I would also add that many people would regard the legal system as flawed and I find a hard time seeing how one case proves the validity of a whole topic.

I find that the whole discussion in this regard is simply an appeal to authority

Incorrect. Science is all about empirical proof. Evolution is proved empricially repeatedly. Intelligent Design on the other hand has not provided any adequate empirical proof.

Intelligent Design has nothing to do with science; it cannot be used to prove science, and it cannot be proved using science. In comparison, evolution is constantly used to prove scientific hypotheses, and evolution can be proved using the scientific method.

It's actually worth noting that unlike many aspects of science, evolution extends beyond simply being scientific theory by virtue of the fact that it is a mathematical optimisation technique; we can prove most aspects of evolution completely in mathematical simulation models.

You may have misunderstood my point here. I am not talking about about evolution - I am referring to the existance of everything in the universe and the universe itself. If you believe you have empirical proof that disproves the existance of God, then please bring it forward. I want to hear it

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

I find that the whole discussion in this regard is simply an appeal to authority

From your own wiki article...

Keep in mind that the fact that an argument is an appeal to authority doesn't make its conclusion untrue, nor does it make it unreasonable to believe the argument. An appeal to authority cannot guarantee the truth of the conclusion because the fact that an authority says something does not make it so.

If you believe you have empirical proof that disproves the existance of fairies, then please bring it forward. I want to hear it

It's really not quite as profound a retort when you put it that way eh?

 

[BradCube]

It's really not quite as profound a retort when you put it that way eh?

eh, I am getting over this response now: Faires and God are the same thing - dismissable. I will re-iterate again my point. Posing God answers far more questions which are un-answerable by us (at least through science). Origin of the universe, life etc.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense unless:

1. We know fully what evidence we would expect to find and
2. We have thoroughly research those areas and found no such evidence.

I don't feel that this is applicable to God. Nevertheless it seems you just want to go round and round in this argument. The reason for bringing up that there is no affirmative empirical evidence that disproves God was to show why the word "persuade" was used instead of "proof". Your response is "you have no affirmative emperical evidence of God" which I agreed with from the outset when I said:

I imagine, 'persuade' was used rather than proved since neither the atheist nor the theist can prove their belief empirically.

From your own wiki article...

Keep in mind that the fact that an argument is an appeal to authority doesn't make its conclusion untrue, nor does it make it unreasonable to believe the argument. An appeal to authority cannot guarantee the truth of the conclusion because the fact that an authority says something does not make it so.

Agreed, but this certainly does not mean it is reasonable on its own! It means that it is only reasonable when provided with other proofs or reasons.