Debate the topic "Does an Intelligent Designer of the universe exist?"

jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Debate the topic "Does an Intelligent Designer of the universe exist?"

   This is a challenge to anyone who wants to defend the proposition that an Intelligent Designer does not exist.  I will defend its negation in a LOGICAL, RATIONAL manner.  There will be no arguments made on the basis of faith.  Considering the location of this forum, it would seem reasonable to expect the same type of argument in return.  However, in my limited experience with atheists, I've yet to witness one who could actually produce this type of argument.  Nonetheless, I am optimistic that I may encounter a worthy foe eventually.

   So here is the game plan.  I will provide multiple arguments in favor of my position.  These arguments will be supported by a multitude of scientific and philosophical evidence.  If you are to be successful in defending your position, you must first tear down my arguments, and then erect in their place a positive case of your own.  So if you happen to be someone who suffers from intellectually laziness by thinking it is sufficient for you to just resort to unsubstantiated skepticism to defend your claim, please, abstain from engaging.  You see the topic of this debate is "Does an Intelligent Designer of the universe exist?".  It is not a proposition, but rather a question.  So their is no place here for anyone who likes to play the "you are the one asserting the claim so you have the burden of proof-card", considering both sides will be making claims.  So I welcome anyone capable of accomplishing this in a LOGICAL, RATIONAL manner. 

   My first argument is on the basis of the existence of the universe.  It is by no means any new, groundbreaking argument that I have authored.  However, I've yet to witness a cogent rebuttal of it. 

The argument is as follows.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

I have no doubt that you are familiar with the structure of an argument. So as you can see, this argument is air tight logically. That is to say that based on the 2 premises, the conclusion is logically inescapable. So to dispute the conclusion, one must argue against the truth of one or both premises, demonstrating they are less plausible than their negation. In accordance, I will attempt to demonstrate their validity with the following:

Support of premise 1
A. For something to come into being without any cause whatsoever would be to come into being from nothing. This would be worse that magic. If a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, at least you have a cause, even if it is the deceiving magician. But this is still better than NOTHING. I don't think anyone sincerely believes that things, like say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause.
B. If something could come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn't come into being from nothing. Why don't bicycles and root beer POP into being? Why only universes?
C. I would assert common experience and scientific evidence confirm premise 1.

Support of premise 2
A. The universally accepted "Big Bang" model.
B. Redshift of light.
C. Abundance of certain light elements.
D. Microwave cosmic background radiation.
E. The thermodynamics of the universe.
F. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem


Clarification of the Cause
A. For think of what the universe is: ALL of space-time reality,including ALL matter and energy.
B. As the cause of space-time, matter and energy, this cause must be transcendent. Therefore, it is nonphysical, uncaused, immaterial, unimaginably powerful, and beyond space and time.
C. Furthermore, it must be a personal being. This is the only way a timeless cause can create a temporal effect. This is because if a cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then if the cause is there, the effect must be there too. To illustrate, water freezes @0C. The cause of the freezing is the temperature achieving 0C. If the temperature was always 0C, the water is eternally frozen. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze a finite time ago. Since the universe began to exist a finite time ago, its cause would have to be a personal being with free will, who chose to create as a free act, independent of any prior conditions.
D. To further illustrate why this cause must be a personal agent, consider causality.  There cannot be an infinite regress of causes.  A prime-mover is unavoidable for the chain of events to begin.  So whatever this may be, it has to be an uncaused cause, which exists by a necessity of its own nature.  It follows logically that this cause must contain within itself the cause for the initial event.  This is only achievable for an agent that is capable of free-will.  Which, by nature, constitutes personal, intelligent beings.  We experience this  type of causation regularly.  To illustrate, imagine 100 dominoes arranged in a manner that would allow you to push the first, into the second, into the third...into the hundredth.  Assume you push the first, and they all fall as planned.  If we then ask what was the immediate cause of #100 falling, we would say #99 knocked it over.  It would follow that the immediate cause of #99 to fall, was #98, and so on all the way to #1.  Now, what was the cause of #1 to fall? We could say because you pushed it.  Okay, what caused you to push it? Easy, you chose to.  But what caused you to choose to? You wanted to, simple as that.  You had to make a choice, push it, or don't push it.  This is an antonymical pair that exhausts all possibilities.  Maybe their were factors that were considered in making your decision, but ultimately, none directly caused you to act.  You acted because you chose to, end of story.  Every event now has sufficient cause for happening, and we need look no further.

Conclusion
This demonstrates the existence of a  beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe, which I happen to call, God.

 

   The second argument is in regards to the fine-tuning of not only the universe as a whole, but also biological organisms. 

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

   Now again, this is logically iron-clad argument.  That is to say if the premises are true, the conclusion follows inescapably.  So are the premises more plausible than their negation? 

   Before we discuss this argument, it’s important to understand that by “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” (otherwise the argument would be obviously circular). Rather during the last forty years or so, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends upon a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the Big Bang itself. This is known as the fine-tuning of the universe.

This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, you find appearing in them certain constants, like the constant that represents the force of gravity. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants. Second, in addition to these constants, there are certain arbitrary quantities that are put in just as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for example, the amount of entropy or the balance between matter and anti-matter in the universe. Now all of these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants or quantities to be altered by less than a hair’s breadth, the life-permitting balance would be destroyed, and no living organisms of any kind could exist. 

   For example, a change in the strength of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe’s expansion is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10120. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang’s low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 1010(123). Penrose comments, “I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010(123). And it’s not just each constant or quantity that must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers. 

   So when scientists say that the universe is fine-tuned for life, they don’t mean “designed”; rather they mean that small deviations from the actual values of the fundamental constants and quantities of nature would render the universe life-prohibiting or, alternatively, that the range of life-permitting values is incomprehensibly narrow in comparison with the range of assumable values. Richard Dawkins himself, citing the work of the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees, acknowledges that the universe does exhibit this extraordinary fine-tuning.  But even if we grant that SOMEHOW the universe did overcome this astronomical problem and provided these initial conditions for life to exist, how did life actually originate? Seems like the best answer an atheist can present is abiogenesis occurred, followed by Darwinian evolution.  Now I hold the view that the absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence.  So I don't reject this claim based solely on the FACT that neither abiogenesis nor Darwinian evolution have EVER been observed (before anyone attempts to condemn and correct me, let me make it easy for you; point me to the recorded observation of abiogenesis and then list JUST ONE observation of an organism that occupied multiple Kingdoms of biological classification.) But also that the probability of this happening unguided is unrealistic.  To give just one example, Barrow and Tipler have calculated the probability of an evolutionary genome to be between (4-180)110000 and (4-360)110000.  Now multiply this by the improbabilities associated with the universe's formation.  So if this somehow did happen, it is rock solid proof of a miracle, and would therefore also be powerful evidence for the existence of God.

 

 

 

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:Cause and

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Cause and effect...


The 1st premise fails, logically because it ignores the reality of cause and effect, that is to say that effect MUST be seperated from cause by a period of time.

A simultanious cause and effect are equal to an uncaused effect. There is no difference.

Time, the temporal dimension of space, did not exist until the Plank Instant AFTER the rapid expansion of the primordial universe. Since time did not exist until a point AFTER the 'effect' of expansion, there can be no CAUSE.

1. Cause and Effect are a temporal concept.
2. Time did not exist until the universe expanded.

Thus, there can be no Cause to the Effect of expansion.

 

Thank you for playing, come again.

 

 

That is the scientific explanation.

The layperson like me, simply says you don't have to know how to build a car engine to know that it doesn't run  on pixie dust.

Cognition is not required for the universe to occur. This is something the theist refuses to accept. And they also refuse to accept the reality that humans make up all sorts of crap even outside the issue of a god, and humans have always  been capable of believing false things.

I know what a human brain looks like. I know that the universe does not resemble the structure of a human brain. Since that is the case, it cannot think, so the matter and energy that came about cannot be the result of a cognition. Otherwise my car can run on pixie dust merely because I like the idea of pixies.

But like most theists, instead of getting with the times, they allow their egos and emotions to rule them and "The Theist" will simply try to make more shit up to ignore the fact that he is selling garbage.

I value more the theist who merely says "It's just something I like believing", that is honest. But it is bullshit to sell something you know damned well is not universal.

As an aside Luis, glad to see you posting again. Haven't seen you around in a while.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Aopologetica

Brian37 wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Cause and effect...


The 1st premise fails, logically because it ignores the reality of cause and effect, that is to say that effect MUST be separated from cause by a period of time.

A simultaneous cause and effect are equal to an uncaused effect. There is no difference.

Time, the temporal dimension of space, did not exist until the Plank Instant AFTER the rapid expansion of the primordial universe. Since time did not exist until a point AFTER the 'effect' of expansion, there can be no CAUSE.

1. Cause and Effect are a temporal concept.
2. Time did not exist until the universe expanded.

Thus, there can be no Cause to the Effect of expansion.

 

Thank you for playing, come again.

 

 

That is the scientific explanation.

The layperson like me, simply says you don't have to know how to build a car engine to know that it doesn't run  on pixie dust.

Cognition is not required for the universe to occur. This is something the theist refuses to accept. And they also refuse to accept the reality that humans make up all sorts of crap even outside the issue of a god, and humans have always  been capable of believing false things.

I know what a human brain looks like. I know that the universe does not resemble the structure of a human brain. Since that is the case, it cannot think, so the matter and energy that came about cannot be the result of a cognition. Otherwise my car can run on pixie dust merely because I like the idea of pixies.

But like most theists, instead of getting with the times, they allow their egos and emotions to rule them and "The Theist" will simply try to make more shit up to ignore the fact that he is selling garbage.

I value more the theist who merely says "It's just something I like believing", that is honest. But it is bullshit to sell something you know damned well is not universal.

As an aside Luis, glad to see you posting again. Haven't seen you around in a while.

 

 

 

 

Yeah... personal issues, the crash of TWO computers in the house, and getting bogged down in research for the blogging project I've taken on....

The kiddies can't simply say "It's true because I believe it." because it sounds as lame to them as it does to us. They have to weave elaborate fictions to bolster their flagging confidence in 'faith'. They need to toss out buzzwords like 'logic' and mischaracterizations of real science because if they don't, they are stuck with simple naked belief...

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:I will make

jackspell wrote:
I will make this short and simple. For the M-theory to avoid design then the mechanism that generates them has to also avoid fine tuning. No one has yet to propose any viable options. Also, look into the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem. In 2003 they where able to PROVE that ANY universe, that is on average, in a state of cosmic expansion, CANNOT be eternal in the past, but must have a past space-time boundary. Checkmate.

Oh ya, I remember seeing all those samples of pre big bang material they have collected from all the universes they tested.  Of course they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that that is the case, because inflation is not just a theory, it is a scientifically proven fact.  If you believe that, I have some inflation samples you can buy, pretty cheap, also you can get your own piece of space-time boundary for just $99.99 if you mention the code "moron" when calling 1-800-DUM-BASS.

wtf are you talking about? checkmate? lol you are funny.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Herk
Superfan
Herk's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2009-10-29
User is offlineOffline
plagiarism

Posting an entire quoted webpage without attribution is not only dishonest but can be criminal if you do it without permission.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5741


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote: Here is

jackspell wrote:
 Here is the problem with lotto analogy. The odds of winning the powerball are long. And yes someone almost always wins. And yes, in the many worlds hypothesis every work is equally probable. We are concerned with why do we have a LIFE-PERMITTING WORLD, WHEN A LIFE PROHIBITING IS SO MUCH MORE PROBABLE. Now imagine a lottery with a billion white balls, and one red. Now, reach in and pull the red, blindfolded. Have fun.

Lol, the irony here is the fact that for any X value of probability, X has infinitely better odds of occurring then an Infinite god.

For any value of X, where X is at least 1 (our reality) X > X-∞.

There, is that simple enough for you?

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Herk wrote:Posting an entire

Herk wrote:

Posting an entire quoted webpage without attribution is not only dishonest but can be criminal if you do it without permission.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5741

 

DAMNNNNNNNNNNNNN.  Plagiarizer in the house.  The Theory of Inherent Dishonesty in Theism shows it's face again!

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 590
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
I agree with your logic,

I agree with your logic, Brian, aside from lame attacks on theists and the pixies...

The problem is, that is not at all what I've said, so you can't generalize this to me. I'm not trying to prove cognition or convince you to believe in me. Cognition arises from the fine tuning problem as a theory.

If you've never seen cognition outside the human brain that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

True that the universe might not need cognition but fine tuning denounces it.

ID is not universal as M-theory isn't too.

The "stinking bullshit" comes only from people who engage lame attacks and distorted ideas to deny any possible theory that contradicts their agenda.

You can easely detect these people by watching the allergic reactions they have when someone with a theist badge writes.

Atheism for these people is not falsifiable.

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
There should be a

There should be a plagiarizer badge.  His opening argument was taken from WCL also.

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:There should be

Ktulu wrote:

There should be a plagiarizer badge.  His opening argument was taken from WCL also.

The same thing went through my head.  When the new site is established we will have to create new badges.  Badges will be gone on day one of the new site.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Teralek

Teralek wrote:

This a cool video!  It reminds me about the occasional inconsistence about my theist badge here.

But I guess in some definitions I am a theist. I believe in the Matrix. However when I speak of the Matrix itself I'm more an Ignostic than anything else.

However the way I'm being attacked by categorical rejection of an intellingent First Cause to this Universe; leads me to believe that many here are strong atheists.

 

I am, by definition a weak atheist. I will tell you that there is no god because there is no evidence I have ever seen which confirms the claim that there is a god or gods.

Now, I'm willing to admit that I am in my own right a god. I can create and destroy life. I have the ability to control various aspect of the environment; depending on what technology I can get my hands on. Yet, I am not the god which others claim created the universe I live in but I have created universes for other beings to live.

I really like his videos. It's almost perfect the logic he lays out.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote:Yes WE simply

Teralek wrote:

Yes WE simply don't know, that's why this theory is valid.

I believe you are looking for the word hypothesis.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 590
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Ktulu

Sapient wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

There should be a plagiarizer badge.  His opening argument was taken from WCL also.

The same thing went through my head.  When the new site is established we will have to create new badges.  Badges will be gone on day one of the new site.

I wonder what my badge would be in the new site 

Is there a badge definition page? I noticed a new badge since I came "Theistard" I'm not sure what it is.

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:Cause and

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Cause and effect...


The 1st premise fails, logically because it ignores the reality of cause and effect, that is to say that effect MUST be seperated from cause by a period of time.

A simultanious cause and effect are equal to an uncaused effect. There is no difference.

Time, the temporal dimension of space, did not exist until the Plank Instant AFTER the rapid expansion of the primordial universe. Since time did not exist until a point AFTER the 'effect' of expansion, there can be no CAUSE.

1. Cause and Effect are a temporal concept.
2. Time did not exist until the universe expanded.

Thus, there can be no Cause to the Effect of expansion.

 

Thank you for playing, come again.

 

Couldn't there be a cause such as two strings of energy (unknown type) which collide and then cause the universe we know to be created?

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Avicenna
Avicenna's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2011-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Here is the problem

Quote:
Here is the problem with lotto analogy. The odds of winning the powerball are long. And yes someone almost always wins. And yes, in the many worlds hypothesis every work is equally probable. We are concerned with why do we have a LIFE-PERMITTING WORLD, WHEN A LIFE PROHIBITING IS SO MUCH MORE PROBABLE. Now imagine a lottery with a billion white balls, and one red. Now, reach in and pull the red, blindfolded. Have fun.


It's the perfect anaology. Why do you have a Lotto Winner when not winning the Lotto is so probable? Because you never hear about all the non-lottery winners... You don't know their names. You don't hear about them ever! No one ever calls up the guy who didn't win. Lottery winners thank god because they understand blind luck and assume that a mystical deity either gave them the numbers of a predetermined fall of balls or affected the balls somehow to win. In the same way that you believe that a deity either predetermined the conditions or affected the earth to create life.

That's not how life develops. Life can develop in a variety of conditions and indeed evolve to work in some fairly insane conditions like thermal vents (400 C with functioning life). You are living under the assumption that we have a very narrow range of survival when human beings alone live in a temperature range of nearly 50 C and with life capable of living at -50C to upto 400C. That's a HUGE range. There could be archeoform life on Venus for all we know. Life doesn't have to be as we know it.

You are basically the winner of a lottery, claiming that the winnings you have got are due to the effect of magic rather than pure chance.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Herk wrote:Posting an entire

Herk wrote:

Posting an entire quoted webpage without attribution is not only dishonest but can be criminal if you do it without permission.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5741

Very funny site. They get all scientific and sound all textbook like, but when you get done reading all I can say is "what has this guy actually proven?"

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Louis_Cypher

Brian37 wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Cause and effect...


The 1st premise fails, logically because it ignores the reality of cause and effect, that is to say that effect MUST be seperated from cause by a period of time.

A simultanious cause and effect are equal to an uncaused effect. There is no difference.

Time, the temporal dimension of space, did not exist until the Plank Instant AFTER the rapid expansion of the primordial universe. Since time did not exist until a point AFTER the 'effect' of expansion, there can be no CAUSE.

1. Cause and Effect are a temporal concept.
2. Time did not exist until the universe expanded.

Thus, there can be no Cause to the Effect of expansion.

 

Thank you for playing, come again.

 

 

That is the scientific explanation.

The layperson like me, simply says you don't have to know how to build a car engine to know that it doesn't run  on pixie dust.

Cognition is not required for the universe to occur. This is something the theist refuses to accept. And they also refuse to accept the reality that humans make up all sorts of crap even outside the issue of a god, and humans have always  been capable of believing false things.

I know what a human brain looks like. I know that the universe does not resemble the structure of a human brain. Since that is the case, it cannot think, so the matter and energy that came about cannot be the result of a cognition. Otherwise my car can run on pixie dust merely because I like the idea of pixies.

But like most theists, instead of getting with the times, they allow their egos and emotions to rule them and "The Theist" will simply try to make more shit up to ignore the fact that he is selling garbage.

I value more the theist who merely says "It's just something I like believing", that is honest. But it is bullshit to sell something you know damned well is not universal.

As an aside Luis, glad to see you posting again. Haven't seen you around in a while.

 

 

 

So if you and I were walking through the woods and found a translucent laying there and I asked "where did that come from?", you would respond, "nowhere, it just exists inexplicably"? Even the layperson knows that's absurd. Even my 4 year old knows better than that. Now, increase the ball to the size of a car. Same problem. Now a planet, solar system, galaxy...universe. Same problem. So answer one thing for me, you stand by the idea that your car won't run on pixies because that is continually verified and never falsified by your experience. In my experience, something beginning to exist with NO CAUSE whatsoever is always verified and NEVER falsified. Apparently you've seen this falsified. Do tell!

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 590
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Avicenna wrote:Quote:Here is

Avicenna wrote:

Quote:
Here is the problem with lotto analogy. The odds of winning the powerball are long. And yes someone almost always wins. And yes, in the many worlds hypothesis every work is equally probable. We are concerned with why do we have a LIFE-PERMITTING WORLD, WHEN A LIFE PROHIBITING IS SO MUCH MORE PROBABLE. Now imagine a lottery with a billion white balls, and one red. Now, reach in and pull the red, blindfolded. Have fun.


It's the perfect anaology. Why do you have a Lotto Winner when not winning the Lotto is so probable? Because you never hear about all the non-lottery winners... You don't know their names. You don't hear about them ever! No one ever calls up the guy who didn't win. Lottery winners thank god because they understand blind luck and assume that a mystical deity either gave them the numbers of a predetermined fall of balls or affected the balls somehow to win. In the same way that you believe that a deity either predetermined the conditions or affected the earth to create life.

That's not how life develops. Life can develop in a variety of conditions and indeed evolve to work in some fairly insane conditions like thermal vents (400 C with functioning life). You are living under the assumption that we have a very narrow range of survival when human beings alone live in a temperature range of nearly 50 C and with life capable of living at -50C to upto 400C. That's a HUGE range. There could be archeoform life on Venus for all we know. Life doesn't have to be as we know it.

You are basically the winner of a lottery, claiming that the winnings you have got are due to the effect of magic rather than pure chance.
 

As a biotechnologist this is my field... please review your numbers:

http://www.astrobiology.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=12337

http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/2120/life-below-the-limit

lower limit is -2ºC and upper is 121ºC

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote:I agree with

Teralek wrote:

I agree with your logic, Brian, aside from lame attacks on theists and the pixies...

The problem is, that is not at all what I've said, so you can't generalize this to me. I'm not trying to prove cognition or convince you to believe in me. Cognition arises from the fine tuning problem as a theory.

If you've never seen cognition outside the human brain that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

True that the universe might not need cognition but fine tuning denounces it.

ID is not universal as M-theory isn't too.

The "stinking bullshit" comes only from people who engage lame attacks and distorted ideas to deny any possible theory that contradicts their agenda.

You can easely detect these people by watching the allergic reactions they have when someone with a theist badge writes.

Atheism for these people is not falsifiable.

Quote:
If you've never seen cognition outside the human brain that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I think I saw you on "Lets Make A Deal" once, you were the guy dressed up like a clown" And you picked door number three and behind it was STUPID FUCKING LOGIC, and then you were left with the parting gift of ignorance.

You keep forgetting that we are not stupid. Your elaborate claptrap is not fooling anyone here.

Now here is how good logic works, OUTSIDE, the issue of deity claims.

I claim x is true. I FUCKING PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR X BEING TRUE. I know brains exist (we have medical evidence of brains existing)and I know evolution exists(DNA) and I know evolution does not require a magic man with a magic wand. Since the universe does not look like a human brain IT CANNOT FUNCTION LIKE ONE, because it is not structured like one. What you are doing is accusing a rock as being capable of being a goat because they both consist of energy and matter.

It doesnt work like you want it to work.

"How do you know if you've never seen it, prove it doesn't exist"

BULL FUCKING SHIT!

"Snarfwidgets are real, since you have never found one, and since you cant disprove them, they are real"

BULL SHIT!

M-theory, blah blah blah=Snarfwidgets=because you cant prove they don't exist.

Now why do I think your logic is fucked up?

Plug the absurd claims other people make that you reject into your argument's here and then ask yourself, "Are their absurd claims true because i cant disprove them".

M-theory=therefore Allah

M-Theory= therefore Vishnu

M-Theory= Theirefore Isis

IF WE are going by your stupid standard of "anything goes" then those statements above are equally valid. Which would mean everything every person utters is true by proxy of utterance . You know that would be absurd.

It doesn't work when Muslim or Jews or even pantheists try it, and it isn't going to work when you try this fallacious bullshit.

EVOLUTION explains cognition, not your bullshit fantasy. And stop complaining about our reactions to your posts. No one forced you to post here. No one is going to hate you for making absurd claims, but your claims do not deserve taboo status and asking me to placate your emotions because of a choice you made in coming here is childish. You don't have to leave, but do not expect me to sugar coat my position. If you truly want me to hate you, keep complaining about my choice of words. Stick to worrying about your own arguments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:jackspell

Ktulu wrote:

jackspell wrote:
ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

                                           Teralek, interesting counterpoints.  I like the way you think.

If I am begging the question, as so many claim, SHOW ME HOW. The argument is obvious and never even argues for God. 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. (God is of no relevance here.) 2. The universe began to exist. (Again, no mention or contingency for God). 3. So it follows logically therefore, the universe has a cause.(No implication here neither) So, somebody please show me where the presupposition is hiding?

Lol, I'll try again even though I guarantee you it will end as last time.

Ok, two objections.  

p1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 

Every one thing that begins to exist is referring to the set of all things contained within the universe.  The universe is not a THING, it is the set of all things.  See Russell's paradox about including sets as part of themselves. (aka barber paradox and so on)

Therefore your second premise does not follow from from first premise. (since you don't like the term non sequitur)

Second objection...

p1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.  

This implies that there are two sets of things, those that begin to exist, and those that do not begin to exist.  Therefore in order for your argument to conclude God, this set MUST include more then just GOD, otherwise it will read like this.

p1. Everything except for GOD has a cause, and we call that begging the question. Smiling

I'm sure this is the funniest objections you have ever heard Smiling lol.

 

First off I seriously want to commend you for objecting in a logical manner, instead of just ad hominems and stupid insults that aren't even formal objections. So by all means, let's keep it this way and perhaps we will get somewhere.

Your first objection.
Okay..for the sake of the argument if you would like to classify the universe as a set I have no objection to that. Especially when a set is itself a "thing'. So therefore you objection fails. And FYI Russell's paradox deals with mathematical entities described in "naive set theory". And in no way is applicable to this argument.
On a side note: I have no problem with the term "non sequitur" when properly used. The premises of an argument aren't suppose to follow from each other. That would be impossible. The "conclusion" is is what suppose to follow the premise. If it does not, then the "argument" becomes fallacious and is therefore a non sequitur.

Your second objection
Again for the sake of the objection, let's say God is in a set. He is in the set of things that never began to exist, which also includes mathematical entities, functions, numbers, logical absolutes etc.

Now, by your definitions, your objections fall flat on their face and my argument CANNOT be erroneously labeled as question begging. Your move.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Avicenna
Avicenna's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2011-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Fair enough... That is still

Fair enough... That is still nearlly a 120 degrees of range which is pretty damn big.


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 590
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
I'm not even going to answer

I'm not even going to answer you. An answer to your rants would be logically impossible anyway.

I already said everything and nothing ever said in this forum convinced me that my "Hypothesis" (thanks to digitalbeachbum remark I think this is a better choice of word) is illogical.

I post here and read here so that I can put my ideas to the challenge and evolve them. I've actually done that. I have a more clear idea now of what I believe to be the truth than before joining this forum.

I use to talk in a Christian conservative blog as well and get hammered by them too. I kind of like that!  I like to be different to group mainstream. I like this as much as I like Bertrand Russell.

I will criticize your choice of words any time I want to as long as there is freedom of speech. I think I'm going to write a serious essay about ID! I'm going to do that because everyone who is doing it at the moment ends up screwing it up by having a Christian agenda and talking God at the end. ID has a place in agnostic philosophy in my opinion!

Take the references used here to support ID by jackspell for example, all of them come from that bonehead WLC.

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:Send me my

jackspell wrote:

Send me my naked assertion of proxy utterance.  Show me where.  You can't because there is none so stop crying cause you don't like the logical conclusion but you aren't smart enough to logically refute a simple deductive argument.

You have "theist" under your avatar. Atheists don't have "theist" under their avatar here, we have the word "atheist" under ours.

So whatever you want to call your pet deity claim IS a naked assertion by proxy of utterance. Unless you don't believe in a god and are just a poe. I don't think you are a poe, I think you do have a god claim concept that you truly believe. Otherwise you wouldn't have "theist" under your avatar.

I say all god claims, yours and everyone claimed in human history are ALL naked assertions by proxy of utterance,

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
No...really....

jackspell wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Cause and effect...


The 1st premise fails, logically because it ignores the reality of cause and effect, that is to say that effect MUST be separated from cause by a period of time.

A simultaneous cause and effect are equal to an uncaused effect. There is no difference.

Time, the temporal dimension of space, did not exist until the Plank Instant AFTER the rapid expansion of the primordial universe. Since time did not exist until a point AFTER the 'effect' of expansion, there can be no CAUSE.

1. Cause and Effect are a temporal concept.
2. Time did not exist until the universe expanded.

Thus, there can be no Cause to the Effect of expansion.

 

Thank you for playing, come again.

 

 

That is the scientific explanation.

The layperson like me, simply says you don't have to know how to build a car engine to know that it doesn't run  on pixie dust.

Cognition is not required for the universe to occur. This is something the theist refuses to accept. And they also refuse to accept the reality that humans make up all sorts of crap even outside the issue of a god, and humans have always  been capable of believing false things.

I know what a human brain looks like. I know that the universe does not resemble the structure of a human brain. Since that is the case, it cannot think, so the matter and energy that came about cannot be the result of a cognition. Otherwise my car can run on pixie dust merely because I like the idea of pixies.

But like most theists, instead of getting with the times, they allow their egos and emotions to rule them and "The Theist" will simply try to make more shit up to ignore the fact that he is selling garbage.

I value more the theist who merely says "It's just something I like believing", that is honest. But it is bullshit to sell something you know damned well is not universal.

As an aside Luis, glad to see you posting again. Haven't seen you around in a while.

 

 

 

So if you and I were walking through the woods and found a translucent laying there and I asked "where did that come from?", you would respond, "nowhere, it just exists inexplicably"? Even the layperson knows that's absurd. Even my 4 year old knows better than that. Now, increase the ball to the size of a car. Same problem. Now a planet, solar system, galaxy...universe. Same problem. So answer one thing for me, you stand by the idea that your car won't run on pixies because that is continually verified and never falsified by your experience. In my experience, something beginning to exist with NO CAUSE whatsoever is always verified and NEVER falsified. Apparently you've seen this falsified. Do tell!

 

What the hell is a 'translucent'???

Did you just go from the trite and absurd, frequently debunked Kalom's Argument to the even more absurd and idiotic Watchmaker spiel??? Really? Is this your first time to ever talk to an atheist???

 

The watchmaker argument fails because it conflates NATURAL objects with ARTIFACTS (man made objects) A car is a man made object...an artifact, a rock isn't. Primitives assumed that because we can manufacture objects that everything they see must somehow magically be manufactured... primitives still do.

I won't bother to discuss science or logic with you for the same reason I won't discuss algebra with my dog... he's a brilliant dog, but in the end, he will never be able to solve a quadratic equation, he's a dog. You are a believer in magic, therefore, you can not understand or accept science OR logic so instead I will ask you; How does the magic work? How does your god *do* anything???? 

 

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote: First off

jackspell wrote:
 First off I seriously want to commend you for objecting in a logical manner, instead of just ad hominems and stupid insults that aren't even formal objections. So by all means, let's keep it this way and perhaps we will get somewhere. Your first objection. Okay..for the sake of the argument if you would like to classify the universe as a set I have no objection to that. Especially when a set is itself a "thing'. So therefore you objection fails. And FYI Russell's paradox deals with mathematical entities described in "naive set theory". And in no way is applicable to this argument. On a side note: I have no problem with the term "non sequitur" when properly used. The premises of an argument aren't suppose to follow from each other. That would be impossible. The "conclusion" is is what suppose to follow the premise. If it does not, then the "argument" becomes fallacious and is therefore a non sequitur. Your second objection Again for the sake of the objection, let's say God is in a set. He is in the set of things that never began to exist, which also includes mathematical entities, functions, numbers, logical absolutes etc. Now, by your definitions, your objections fall flat on their face and my argument CANNOT be erroneously labeled as question begging. Your move.

Well, you do catch more flies with honey, you sweet talker you.. I think we should take this discussion in a 1 on 1.

Please create a topic in the theist vs atheist, I'm having fun and haven't engaged a true presumptionalist apologetic in a while.  I'll play your game and to warn you, I'll use TAG against you lol.  just so you can brush up on it. 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I will criticize your

Quote:
I will criticize your choice of words any time I want to as long as there is freedom of speech

YOU DO NOT have freedom of speech at this website. Neither do I. This is private property. The government cannot have you arrested for criticizing me. But YOU do not own this website. If I go to a Christian website, or another atheist website, those rules might be different, but it IS PRIVATE PROPERTY. "Free speech" only refers to GOVERNMENT. Brian Sapient can kick you or me off this website whenever he feels like it. This is his house, not mine, not yours. You are simply lucky you are on a sight that is not as restrictive as others may be, he likes it that way.

NOW I don't have any rights over how you respond to me, not even on this board because I am not a mod, and you are LUCKY enough to be at a sight whose owner values limited rules and openness. I am was merely saying bitching about my word choice isn't going to convince me you have the right position. So don't repeat that bullshit about my word choice, otherwise I WILL end up actually hating you. I'm not even demanding any mod here boot you.

So if bitching about my word choice is what you want to turn this thread into, I cant stop you, but I can tell you the mods here and the owners don't like whiners. You came here, exactly what did you think would happen when you came here and pontificated about the nature of reality? Did you think we'd go "thats nice" and leave it at that? Your like the guy who jumps into the boxing ring knowing it is a boxing ring and then complains about getting hit. STOP THAT or I will end up hating you for REAL. Right now I am merely punching your claims.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:Brian37

jackspell wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Cause and effect...


The 1st premise fails, logically because it ignores the reality of cause and effect, that is to say that effect MUST be seperated from cause by a period of time.

A simultanious cause and effect are equal to an uncaused effect. There is no difference.

Time, the temporal dimension of space, did not exist until the Plank Instant AFTER the rapid expansion of the primordial universe. Since time did not exist until a point AFTER the 'effect' of expansion, there can be no CAUSE.

1. Cause and Effect are a temporal concept.
2. Time did not exist until the universe expanded.

Thus, there can be no Cause to the Effect of expansion.

 

Thank you for playing, come again.

 

 

That is the scientific explanation.

The layperson like me, simply says you don't have to know how to build a car engine to know that it doesn't run  on pixie dust.

Cognition is not required for the universe to occur. This is something the theist refuses to accept. And they also refuse to accept the reality that humans make up all sorts of crap even outside the issue of a god, and humans have always  been capable of believing false things.

I know what a human brain looks like. I know that the universe does not resemble the structure of a human brain. Since that is the case, it cannot think, so the matter and energy that came about cannot be the result of a cognition. Otherwise my car can run on pixie dust merely because I like the idea of pixies.

But like most theists, instead of getting with the times, they allow their egos and emotions to rule them and "The Theist" will simply try to make more shit up to ignore the fact that he is selling garbage.

I value more the theist who merely says "It's just something I like believing", that is honest. But it is bullshit to sell something you know damned well is not universal.

As an aside Luis, glad to see you posting again. Haven't seen you around in a while.

 

 

 

So if you and I were walking through the woods and found a translucent laying there and I asked "where did that come from?", you would respond, "nowhere, it just exists inexplicably"? Even the layperson knows that's absurd. Even my 4 year old knows better than that. Now, increase the ball to the size of a car. Same problem. Now a planet, solar system, galaxy...universe. Same problem. So answer one thing for me, you stand by the idea that your car won't run on pixies because that is continually verified and never falsified by your experience. In my experience, something beginning to exist with NO CAUSE whatsoever is always verified and NEVER falsified. Apparently you've seen this falsified. Do tell!

And here comes the "watchmaker" argument.

Ok we can have it your way. See if you can spot the pattern.

translucent=Allah did it, does that work for you? It should, because Muslims believe the world was made just like you do.

translucent=Jesus did it

translucent=My snarfwidgit did it

Me on the other hand, see the universe and life in it as mere processes that start off small and collect and become bigger from those smaller parts, much like rain collects on the ground and then grows to become a puddle which is much more complex than a single rain drop.

So since we can verify that cars don't run on pixie dust that means pixies are real? Is that what you are trying to say?

Ok, my car doesn't run on 72 to virgins, so Allah exists because we know cars don't run on virgins.

Cant you see how fucking absurd your logic is.

Quote:
Now a planet, solar system, galaxy...universe. Same problem. So answer one thing for me, you stand by the idea that your car won't run on pixies because that is continually verified and never falsified by your experience.

1. Plants are explained by evolution. 2. our solar system is explained by the sun and it's gravity. 3.  Our galaxy and the universe is explained by the big bang. You have no business trying to treat real things as being the same as something you damned well know is fucking made up. THEY DO NOT have the same problem as "pixies". Because those are real. pixies are not real.

OTHERWISE I could simply claim "since we don't know everything an invisible pixie started everything". It would be equally valid by your standard because "anything goes" would justify a pixie and would have the same amount of evidence as any god claim humans have ever made.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote:Avicenna

Teralek wrote:

Avicenna wrote:

Quote:
Here is the problem with lotto analogy. The odds of winning the powerball are long. And yes someone almost always wins. And yes, in the many worlds hypothesis every work is equally probable. We are concerned with why do we have a LIFE-PERMITTING WORLD, WHEN A LIFE PROHIBITING IS SO MUCH MORE PROBABLE. Now imagine a lottery with a billion white balls, and one red. Now, reach in and pull the red, blindfolded. Have fun.


It's the perfect anaology. Why do you have a Lotto Winner when not winning the Lotto is so probable? Because you never hear about all the non-lottery winners... You don't know their names. You don't hear about them ever! No one ever calls up the guy who didn't win. Lottery winners thank god because they understand blind luck and assume that a mystical deity either gave them the numbers of a predetermined fall of balls or affected the balls somehow to win. In the same way that you believe that a deity either predetermined the conditions or affected the earth to create life.

That's not how life develops. Life can develop in a variety of conditions and indeed evolve to work in some fairly insane conditions like thermal vents (400 C with functioning life). You are living under the assumption that we have a very narrow range of survival when human beings alone live in a temperature range of nearly 50 C and with life capable of living at -50C to upto 400C. That's a HUGE range. There could be archeoform life on Venus for all we know. Life doesn't have to be as we know it.

You are basically the winner of a lottery, claiming that the winnings you have got are due to the effect of magic rather than pure chance.
 

As a biotechnologist this is my field... please review your numbers:

http://www.astrobiology.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=12337

http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/2120/life-below-the-limit

lower limit is -2ºC and upper is 121ºC

Ok

lower limit=Allah did it

upper limit=Jesus did it

middle range=A snarfwidget did it.

This is fun, we can all cherry pick science to suit our delusions.

I did quote you but I meant it for Jack to show him that you cannot twist science to suit your own pet claims.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Herk
Superfan
Herk's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2009-10-29
User is offlineOffline
agreed

Jackspell: //Again for the sake of the objection, let's say God is in a set. He is in the set of things that never began to exist, which also includes mathematical entities, functions, numbers, logical absolutes etc.//

 

You're saying that God is an abstract mental concept? I can go along with that.


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 590
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:I will

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I will criticize your choice of words any time I want to as long as there is freedom of speech

YOU DO NOT have freedom of speech at this website. Neither do I. This is private property. The government cannot have you arrested for criticizing me. But YOU do not own this website. If I go to a Christian website, or another atheist website, those rules might be different, but it IS PRIVATE PROPERTY. "Free speech" only refers to GOVERNMENT. Brian Sapient can kick you or me off this website whenever he feels like it. This is his house, not mine, not yours. You are simply lucky you are on a sight that is not as restrictive as others may be, he likes it that way.

NOW I don't have any rights over how you respond to me, not even on this board because I am not a mod, and you are LUCKY enough to be at a sight whose owner values limited rules and openness. I am was merely saying bitching about my word choice isn't going to convince me you have the right position. So don't repeat that bullshit about my word choice, otherwise I WILL end up actually hating you. I'm not even demanding any mod here boot you.

So if bitching about my word choice is what you want to turn this thread into, I cant stop you, but I can tell you the mods here and the owners don't like whiners. You came here, exactly what did you think would happen when you came here and pontificated about the nature of reality? Did you think we'd go "thats nice" and leave it at that? Your like the guy who jumps into the boxing ring knowing it is a boxing ring and then complains about getting hit. STOP THAT or I will end up hating you for REAL. Right now I am merely punching your claims.
 

Actually the rules here are more permissive than on this specific Christian blog. I was shut off many times for petty things. That's why I don't talk on Christians blogs anymore. They are not intellectually challenging, they are usually simple to understand and their owners are usually less tolerant of free speech.

I never intended to convince you by bitching on your words! Actually my disapproval of your words is precisely because since post 101 you did little to punch my claims alone and did more a personal honesty attack...  Hate me all you like, I don't care. I still don't agree with your word choice nor the way you start to defend your Queen since post 101... mostly with bias and bigotry. It's obvious that you talk differently according to the badge of the poster.

I actually don't believe a "God" in that sense of the word: "Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists." "A deity is a recognized preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers." - I have some trouble accepting this. So I'm not sure if I would consider myself a theist... "The Matrix" if it exists (as I believe) is certainly a preternatural being who's only property (that can be applied in the light of known observations) is to have created the Universe with intentional purpose of creating life... there is no reason to believe that it is "holy, divine, or sacred" in the context of my ID hypothesis alone. 

I have nothing to add to my claims so far because nothing new came up. All you've said since then was incoherent babbling.

Since the begining my intention is not to prove or convince anyone, only to open a door. Everything in this subject is beyond proof. When I try to make sense of what you are saying I see that you do not understand my ID hypothesis despite my efforts to clarify it. This is because you are unwilling to understand it or uncapable of doing so.

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
But Jackspell

 

jackspell wrote:

 Here is the problem with lotto analogy. The odds of winning the powerball are long. And yes someone almost always wins. And yes, in the many worlds hypothesis every work is equally probable. We are concerned with why do we have a LIFE-PERMITTING WORLD, WHEN A LIFE PROHIBITING IS SO MUCH MORE PROBABLE. Now imagine a lottery with a billion white balls, and one red. Now, reach in and pull the red, blindfolded. Have fun.

 

We are already holding the red ball. And that's Avi's entire point. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ax
Theist
ax's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2012-02-10
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Couldn't there be a cause such as two strings of energy (unknown type) which collide and then cause the universe we know to be created?


Ekpyrotic universe.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote:I'm not even

Teralek wrote:

I'm not even going to answer you. An answer to your rants would be logically impossible anyway.

I already said everything and nothing ever said in this forum convinced me that my "Hypothesis" (thanks to digitalbeachbum remark I think this is a better choice of word) is illogical.

I post here and read here so that I can put my ideas to the challenge and evolve them. I've actually done that. I have a more clear idea now of what I believe to be the truth than before joining this forum.

I use to talk in a Christian conservative blog as well and get hammered by them too. I kind of like that!  I like to be different to group mainstream. I like this as much as I like Bertrand Russell.

I will criticize your choice of words any time I want to as long as there is freedom of speech. I think I'm going to write a serious essay about ID! I'm going to do that because everyone who is doing it at the moment ends up screwing it up by having a Christian agenda and talking God at the end. ID has a place in agnostic philosophy in my opinion!

Take the references used here to support ID by jackspell for example, all of them come from that bonehead WLC.

I understand your "matrix" opinion and I think the video explains it better than I could have myself.

If you have a belief, unless there is evidence to support it, then it is an assumption,  maybe even an educated guess.

So if you have one person who says, "we are hooked up to machines and this "reality" is a simulation..."

Then have another person who says, "we are minions created by a god who watches us..."

And have a person who says, "There is no god, there is no evidence proving one, there never will be..."

All three have a chance on being true (even thought the later choice is my pick). Yet, all three have a chance on being wrong because all three are making an assumption.

This is why I prefer the weak stance on atheism.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ax wrote:digitalbeachbum

ax wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Couldn't there be a cause such as two strings of energy (unknown type) which collide and then cause the universe we know to be created?


Ekpyrotic universe.

Ah yes, M-Theory

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Herk wrote:Jackspell:

Herk wrote:

Jackspell: //Again for the sake of the objection, let's say God is in a set. He is in the set of things that never began to exist, which also includes mathematical entities, functions, numbers, logical absolutes etc.//

 

You're saying that God is an abstract mental concept? I can go along with that.

And you deduced that how? Based on your logic, there is no telling. Let me take a guess, because the other things in that set fit that description? So by your logic, in the set of all integers, 5 is a negative number, right?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 590
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Teralek wrote:

I'm not even going to answer you. An answer to your rants would be logically impossible anyway.

I already said everything and nothing ever said in this forum convinced me that my "Hypothesis" (thanks to digitalbeachbum remark I think this is a better choice of word) is illogical.

I post here and read here so that I can put my ideas to the challenge and evolve them. I've actually done that. I have a more clear idea now of what I believe to be the truth than before joining this forum.

I use to talk in a Christian conservative blog as well and get hammered by them too. I kind of like that!  I like to be different to group mainstream. I like this as much as I like Bertrand Russell.

I will criticize your choice of words any time I want to as long as there is freedom of speech. I think I'm going to write a serious essay about ID! I'm going to do that because everyone who is doing it at the moment ends up screwing it up by having a Christian agenda and talking God at the end. ID has a place in agnostic philosophy in my opinion!

Take the references used here to support ID by jackspell for example, all of them come from that bonehead WLC.

I understand your "matrix" opinion and I think the video explains it better than I could have myself.

If you have a belief, unless there is evidence to support it, then it is an assumption,  maybe even an educated guess.

So if you have one person who says, "we are hooked up to machines and this "reality" is a simulation..."

Then have another person who says, "we are minions created by a god who watches us..."

And have a person who says, "There is no god, there is no evidence proving one, there never will be..."

All three have a chance on being true (even thought the later choice is my pick). Yet, all three have a chance on being wrong because all three are making an assumption.

This is why I prefer the weak stance on atheism.

Yes I understand. The only difference between you and me is that I interpret the fine tuning as an indication of an intentional First Cause. I believe that the highly theoretical String theory and other similar theories that try to explain the origin of the singularity and the fine tunning, are adding unnecessary elements. The intentional First Cause is to me the simplest explanation... my "educated guess". I could be wrong though.

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

jackspell wrote:

 Here is the problem with lotto analogy. The odds of winning the powerball are long. And yes someone almost always wins. And yes, in the many worlds hypothesis every work is equally probable. We are concerned with why do we have a LIFE-PERMITTING WORLD, WHEN A LIFE PROHIBITING IS SO MUCH MORE PROBABLE. Now imagine a lottery with a billion white balls, and one red. Now, reach in and pull the red, blindfolded. Have fun.

 

We are already holding the red ball. And that's Avi's entire point. 

Exactly, that is the reason we need an explanation! Yes, we are holding the red ball, but how did we manged to get this RED BALL when the probability of us getting a WHITE BALL is worse then me thinking of 1 individual subatomic particle somewhere in the universe and telling you that you have 1 chance to pick it. Considering there are more particles in a glass of water, than there are glasses of water in all the oceans on the entire earth, and those particles are distributed in a space so big that a photon traveling 186,000 miles each second would need 46 billion years to cross, any reasonable person would no that can't be explained away as chance.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:jackspell

Ktulu wrote:

jackspell wrote:
 First off I seriously want to commend you for objecting in a logical manner, instead of just ad hominems and stupid insults that aren't even formal objections. So by all means, let's keep it this way and perhaps we will get somewhere. Your first objection. Okay..for the sake of the argument if you would like to classify the universe as a set I have no objection to that. Especially when a set is itself a "thing'. So therefore you objection fails. And FYI Russell's paradox deals with mathematical entities described in "naive set theory". And in no way is applicable to this argument. On a side note: I have no problem with the term "non sequitur" when properly used. The premises of an argument aren't suppose to follow from each other. That would be impossible. The "conclusion" is is what suppose to follow the premise. If it does not, then the "argument" becomes fallacious and is therefore a non sequitur. Your second objection Again for the sake of the objection, let's say God is in a set. He is in the set of things that never began to exist, which also includes mathematical entities, functions, numbers, logical absolutes etc. Now, by your definitions, your objections fall flat on their face and my argument CANNOT be erroneously labeled as question begging. Your move.

Well, you do catch more flies with honey, you sweet talker you.. I think we should take this discussion in a 1 on 1.

Please create a topic in the theist vs atheist, I'm having fun and haven't engaged a true presumptionalist apologetic in a while.  I'll play your game and to warn you, I'll use TAG against you lol.  just so you can brush up on it. 

Dude that is hilarious! You're alright for an atheist. Lol. I'll go set it up.
Better yet, you set it up. I have no idea how.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 590
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Just something I thought...

Causes of the singularity:

 

Allah; Jeovah; Flying Spaguetti monster; Chuck Norris; The Matrix ------> Intentional First Cause

 

String Theory; and other multiverse theories -----> Blind First Cause; may imply the existence of infinite Universes.

 

"No causality" theories for the singularity -----> comes short and begs the question as to why this fine tuning is the only possible reality

 

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Teralek

Brian37 wrote:

Teralek wrote:

Avicenna wrote:

Quote:
Here is the problem with lotto analogy. The odds of winning the powerball are long. And yes someone almost always wins. And yes, in the many worlds hypothesis every work is equally probable. We are concerned with why do we have a LIFE-PERMITTING WORLD, WHEN A LIFE PROHIBITING IS SO MUCH MORE PROBABLE. Now imagine a lottery with a billion white balls, and one red. Now, reach in and pull the red, blindfolded. Have fun.


It's the perfect anaology. Why do you have a Lotto Winner when not winning the Lotto is so probable? Because you never hear about all the non-lottery winners... You don't know their names. You don't hear about them ever! No one ever calls up the guy who didn't win. Lottery winners thank god because they understand blind luck and assume that a mystical deity either gave them the numbers of a predetermined fall of balls or affected the balls somehow to win. In the same way that you believe that a deity either predetermined the conditions or affected the earth to create life.

That's not how life develops. Life can develop in a variety of conditions and indeed evolve to work in some fairly insane conditions like thermal vents (400 C with functioning life). You are living under the assumption that we have a very narrow range of survival when human beings alone live in a temperature range of nearly 50 C and with life capable of living at -50C to upto 400C. That's a HUGE range. There could be archeoform life on Venus for all we know. Life doesn't have to be as we know it.

You are basically the winner of a lottery, claiming that the winnings you have got are due to the effect of magic rather than pure chance.
 

As a biotechnologist this is my field... please review your numbers:

http://www.astrobiology.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=12337

http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/2120/life-below-the-limit

lower limit is -2ºC and upper is 121ºC

Ok

lower limit=Allah did it

upper limit=Jesus did it

middle range=A snarfwidget did it.

This is fun, we can all cherry pick science to suit our delusions.

I did quote you but I meant it for Jack to show him that you cannot twist science to suit your own pet claims.

The only thing that you have shown me is that you don't have the capable of producing a LOGICAL objection, only examples of absurd objections that in no way mimic my logically valid ones. How does posting something stupid make you look like you are "showing" me anything? I would ask you to produce for me a DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT that is LOGICALLY VALID on why God does not exist, but I'm convinced you couldn't produce one to show anything.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Again, I ask.

jackspell wrote:

   This is a challenge to anyone who wants to defend the proposition that an Intelligent Designer does not exist.  I will defend its negation in a LOGICAL, RATIONAL manner.  There will be no arguments made on the basis of faith.  Considering the location of this forum, it would seem reasonable to expect the same type of argument in return.  However, in my limited experience with atheists, I've yet to witness one who could actually produce this type of argument.  Nonetheless, I am optimistic that I may encounter a worthy foe eventually.

   So here is the game plan.  I will provide multiple arguments in favor of my position.  These arguments will be supported by a multitude of scientific and philosophical evidence.  If you are to be successful in defending your position, you must first tear down my arguments, and then erect in their place a positive case of your own.  So if you happen to be someone who suffers from intellectually laziness by thinking it is sufficient for you to just resort to unsubstantiated skepticism to defend your claim, please, abstain from engaging.  You see the topic of this debate is "Does an Intelligent Designer of the universe exist?".  It is not a proposition, but rather a question.  So their is no place here for anyone who likes to play the "you are the one asserting the claim so you have the burden of proof-card", considering both sides will be making claims.  So I welcome anyone capable of accomplishing this in a LOGICAL, RATIONAL manner. 

   My first argument is on the basis of the existence of the universe.  It is by no means any new, groundbreaking argument that I have authored.  However, I've yet to witness a cogent rebuttal of it. 

The argument is as follows.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

I have no doubt that you are familiar with the structure of an argument. So as you can see, this argument is air tight logically. That is to say that based on the 2 premises, the conclusion is logically inescapable. So to dispute the conclusion, one must argue against the truth of one or both premises, demonstrating they are less plausible than their negation. In accordance, I will attempt to demonstrate their validity with the following:

Support of premise 1
A. For something to come into being without any cause whatsoever would be to come into being from nothing. This would be worse that magic. If a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, at least you have a cause, even if it is the deceiving magician. But this is still better than NOTHING. I don't think anyone sincerely believes that things, like say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause.
B. If something could come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn't come into being from nothing. Why don't bicycles and root beer POP into being? Why only universes?
C. I would assert common experience and scientific evidence confirm premise 1.

Support of premise 2
A. The universally accepted "Big Bang" model.
B. Redshift of light.
C. Abundance of certain light elements.
D. Microwave cosmic background radiation.
E. The thermodynamics of the universe.
F. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem


Clarification of the Cause
A. For think of what the universe is: ALL of space-time reality,including ALL matter and energy.
B. As the cause of space-time, matter and energy, this cause must be transcendent. Therefore, it is nonphysical, uncaused, immaterial, unimaginably powerful, and beyond space and time.
C. Furthermore, it must be a personal being. This is the only way a timeless cause can create a temporal effect. This is because if a cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then if the cause is there, the effect must be there too. To illustrate, water freezes @0C. The cause of the freezing is the temperature achieving 0C. If the temperature was always 0C, the water is eternally frozen. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze a finite time ago. Since the universe began to exist a finite time ago, its cause would have to be a personal being with free will, who chose to create as a free act, independent of any prior conditions.
D. To further illustrate why this cause must be a personal agent, consider causality.  There cannot be an infinite regress of causes.  A prime-mover is unavoidable for the chain of events to begin.  So whatever this may be, it has to be an uncaused cause, which exists by a necessity of its own nature.  It follows logically that this cause must contain within itself the cause for the initial event.  This is only achievable for an agent that is capable of free-will.  Which, by nature, constitutes personal, intelligent beings.  We experience this  type of causation regularly.  To illustrate, imagine 100 dominoes arranged in a manner that would allow you to push the first, into the second, into the third...into the hundredth.  Assume you push the first, and they all fall as planned.  If we then ask what was the immediate cause of #100 falling, we would say #99 knocked it over.  It would follow that the immediate cause of #99 to fall, was #98, and so on all the way to #1.  Now, what was the cause of #1 to fall? We could say because you pushed it.  Okay, what caused you to push it? Easy, you chose to.  But what caused you to choose to? You wanted to, simple as that.  You had to make a choice, push it, or don't push it.  This is an antonymical pair that exhausts all possibilities.  Maybe their were factors that were considered in making your decision, but ultimately, none directly caused you to act.  You acted because you chose to, end of story.  Every event now has sufficient cause for happening, and we need look no further.

Conclusion
This demonstrates the existence of a  beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe, which I happen to call, God.

 

   The second argument is in regards to the fine-tuning of not only the universe as a whole, but also biological organisms. 

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

   Now again, this is logically iron-clad argument.  That is to say if the premises are true, the conclusion follows inescapably.  So are the premises more plausible than their negation? 

   Before we discuss this argument, it’s important to understand that by “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” (otherwise the argument would be obviously circular). Rather during the last forty years or so, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends upon a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the Big Bang itself. This is known as the fine-tuning of the universe.

This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, you find appearing in them certain constants, like the constant that represents the force of gravity. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants. Second, in addition to these constants, there are certain arbitrary quantities that are put in just as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for example, the amount of entropy or the balance between matter and anti-matter in the universe. Now all of these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants or quantities to be altered by less than a hair’s breadth, the life-permitting balance would be destroyed, and no living organisms of any kind could exist. 

   For example, a change in the strength of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe’s expansion is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10120. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang’s low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 1010(123). Penrose comments, “I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010(123). And it’s not just each constant or quantity that must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers. 

   So when scientists say that the universe is fine-tuned for life, they don’t mean “designed”; rather they mean that small deviations from the actual values of the fundamental constants and quantities of nature would render the universe life-prohibiting or, alternatively, that the range of life-permitting values is incomprehensibly narrow in comparison with the range of assumable values. Richard Dawkins himself, citing the work of the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees, acknowledges that the universe does exhibit this extraordinary fine-tuning.  But even if we grant that SOMEHOW the universe did overcome this astronomical problem and provided these initial conditions for life to exist, how did life actually originate? Seems like the best answer an atheist can present is abiogenesis occurred, followed by Darwinian evolution.  Now I hold the view that the absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence.  So I don't reject this claim based solely on the FACT that neither abiogenesis nor Darwinian evolution have EVER been observed (before anyone attempts to condemn and correct me, let me make it easy for you; point me to the recorded observation of abiogenesis and then list JUST ONE observation of an organism that occupied multiple Kingdoms of biological classification.) But also that the probability of this happening unguided is unrealistic.  To give just one example, Barrow and Tipler have calculated the probability of an evolutionary genome to be between (4-180)110000 and (4-360)110000.  Now multiply this by the improbabilities associated with the universe's formation.  So if this somehow did happen, it is rock solid proof of a miracle, and would therefore also be powerful evidence for the existence of God.

 

 

 

 

How does your god do it?

How does the magic work?

 

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:jackspell

Brian37 wrote:

jackspell wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Cause and effect...


The 1st premise fails, logically because it ignores the reality of cause and effect, that is to say that effect MUST be seperated from cause by a period of time.

A simultanious cause and effect are equal to an uncaused effect. There is no difference.

Time, the temporal dimension of space, did not exist until the Plank Instant AFTER the rapid expansion of the primordial universe. Since time did not exist until a point AFTER the 'effect' of expansion, there can be no CAUSE.

1. Cause and Effect are a temporal concept.
2. Time did not exist until the universe expanded.

Thus, there can be no Cause to the Effect of expansion.

 

Thank you for playing, come again.

 

 

That is the scientific explanation.

The layperson like me, simply says you don't have to know how to build a car engine to know that it doesn't run  on pixie dust.

Cognition is not required for the universe to occur. This is something the theist refuses to accept. And they also refuse to accept the reality that humans make up all sorts of crap even outside the issue of a god, and humans have always  been capable of believing false things.

I know what a human brain looks like. I know that the universe does not resemble the structure of a human brain. Since that is the case, it cannot think, so the matter and energy that came about cannot be the result of a cognition. Otherwise my car can run on pixie dust merely because I like the idea of pixies.

But like most theists, instead of getting with the times, they allow their egos and emotions to rule them and "The Theist" will simply try to make more shit up to ignore the fact that he is selling garbage.

I value more the theist who merely says "It's just something I like believing", that is honest. But it is bullshit to sell something you know damned well is not universal.

As an aside Luis, glad to see you posting again. Haven't seen you around in a while.

 

 

 

So if you and I were walking through the woods and found a translucent laying there and I asked "where did that come from?", you would respond, "nowhere, it just exists inexplicably"? Even the layperson knows that's absurd. Even my 4 year old knows better than that. Now, increase the ball to the size of a car. Same problem. Now a planet, solar system, galaxy...universe. Same problem. So answer one thing for me, you stand by the idea that your car won't run on pixies because that is continually verified and never falsified by your experience. In my experience, something beginning to exist with NO CAUSE whatsoever is always verified and NEVER falsified. Apparently you've seen this falsified. Do tell!

And here comes the "watchmaker" argument.

Ok we can have it your way. See if you can spot the pattern.

translucent=Allah did it, does that work for you? It should, because Muslims believe the world was made just like you do.

translucent=Jesus did it

translucent=My snarfwidgit did it

Me on the other hand, see the universe and life in it as mere processes that start off small and collect and become bigger from those smaller parts, much like rain collects on the ground and then grows to become a puddle which is much more complex than a single rain drop.

So since we can verify that cars don't run on pixie dust that means pixies are real? Is that what you are trying to say?

Ok, my car doesn't run on 72 to virgins, so Allah exists because we know cars don't run on virgins.

Cant you see how fucking absurd your logic is.

Quote:
Now a planet, solar system, galaxy...universe. Same problem. So answer one thing for me, you stand by the idea that your car won't run on pixies because that is continually verified and never falsified by your experience.

1. Plants are explained by evolution. 2. our solar system is explained by the sun and it's gravity. 3.  Our galaxy and the universe is explained by the big bang. You have no business trying to treat real things as being the same as something you damned well know is fucking made up. THEY DO NOT have the same problem as "pixies". Because those are real. pixies are not real.

OTHERWISE I could simply claim "since we don't know everything an invisible pixie started everything". It would be equally valid by your standard because "anything goes" would justify a pixie and would have the same amount of evidence as any god claim humans have ever made.

 

 

 

Are you really this handicapped? The Watchmaker argues for DESIGN. I am talking about CAUSALITY. TELL ME ONE THING THAT YOU KNOW THAT EXISTS, THAT HAS NO CAUSE WHATSOEVER. Don't worry, I'll wait. While you're busy trying to think of one for the next 60 years, someone else can tell me, can you think of anything, other than A CHOICE, (WHICH IS ONLY POSSIBLE FOR AN ENTITY WITH FREE WILL, MAKING IT PERSONAL), that can close a causal loop?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:jackspell

Brian37 wrote:

jackspell wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Cause and effect...


The 1st premise fails, logically because it ignores the reality of cause and effect, that is to say that effect MUST be seperated from cause by a period of time.

A simultanious cause and effect are equal to an uncaused effect. There is no difference.

Time, the temporal dimension of space, did not exist until the Plank Instant AFTER the rapid expansion of the primordial universe. Since time did not exist until a point AFTER the 'effect' of expansion, there can be no CAUSE.

1. Cause and Effect are a temporal concept.
2. Time did not exist until the universe expanded.

Thus, there can be no Cause to the Effect of expansion.

 

Thank you for playing, come again.

 

 

That is the scientific explanation.

The layperson like me, simply says you don't have to know how to build a car engine to know that it doesn't run  on pixie dust.

Cognition is not required for the universe to occur. This is something the theist refuses to accept. And they also refuse to accept the reality that humans make up all sorts of crap even outside the issue of a god, and humans have always  been capable of believing false things.

I know what a human brain looks like. I know that the universe does not resemble the structure of a human brain. Since that is the case, it cannot think, so the matter and energy that came about cannot be the result of a cognition. Otherwise my car can run on pixie dust merely because I like the idea of pixies.

But like most theists, instead of getting with the times, they allow their egos and emotions to rule them and "The Theist" will simply try to make more shit up to ignore the fact that he is selling garbage.

I value more the theist who merely says "It's just something I like believing", that is honest. But it is bullshit to sell something you know damned well is not universal.

As an aside Luis, glad to see you posting again. Haven't seen you around in a while.

 

 

 

So if you and I were walking through the woods and found a translucent laying there and I asked "where did that come from?", you would respond, "nowhere, it just exists inexplicably"? Even the layperson knows that's absurd. Even my 4 year old knows better than that. Now, increase the ball to the size of a car. Same problem. Now a planet, solar system, galaxy...universe. Same problem. So answer one thing for me, you stand by the idea that your car won't run on pixies because that is continually verified and never falsified by your experience. In my experience, something beginning to exist with NO CAUSE whatsoever is always verified and NEVER falsified. Apparently you've seen this falsified. Do tell!

And here comes the "watchmaker" argument.

Ok we can have it your way. See if you can spot the pattern.

translucent=Allah did it, does that work for you? It should, because Muslims believe the world was made just like you do.

translucent=Jesus did it

translucent=My snarfwidgit did it

Me on the other hand, see the universe and life in it as mere processes that start off small and collect and become bigger from those smaller parts, much like rain collects on the ground and then grows to become a puddle which is much more complex than a single rain drop.

So since we can verify that cars don't run on pixie dust that means pixies are real? Is that what you are trying to say?

Ok, my car doesn't run on 72 to virgins, so Allah exists because we know cars don't run on virgins.

Cant you see how fucking absurd your logic is.

Quote:
Now a planet, solar system, galaxy...universe. Same problem. So answer one thing for me, you stand by the idea that your car won't run on pixies because that is continually verified and never falsified by your experience.

1. Plants are explained by evolution. 2. our solar system is explained by the sun and it's gravity. 3.  Our galaxy and the universe is explained by the big bang. You have no business trying to treat real things as being the same as something you damned well know is fucking made up. THEY DO NOT have the same problem as "pixies". Because those are real. pixies are not real.

OTHERWISE I could simply claim "since we don't know everything an invisible pixie started everything". It would be equally valid by your standard because "anything goes" would justify a pixie and would have the same amount of evidence as any god claim humans have ever made.

 

 

 

Are you really this handicapped? The Watchmaker argues for DESIGN. I am talking about CAUSALITY. TELL ME ONE THING THAT YOU KNOW THAT EXISTS, THAT HAS NO CAUSE WHATSOEVER. Don't worry, I'll wait. While you're busy trying to think of one for the next 60 years, someone else can tell me, can you think of anything, other than A CHOICE, (WHICH IS ONLY POSSIBLE FOR AN ENTITY WITH FREE WILL, MAKING IT PERSONAL), that can close a causal loop?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:jackspell

Brian37 wrote:

jackspell wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Cause and effect...


The 1st premise fails, logically because it ignores the reality of cause and effect, that is to say that effect MUST be seperated from cause by a period of time.

A simultanious cause and effect are equal to an uncaused effect. There is no difference.

Time, the temporal dimension of space, did not exist until the Plank Instant AFTER the rapid expansion of the primordial universe. Since time did not exist until a point AFTER the 'effect' of expansion, there can be no CAUSE.

1. Cause and Effect are a temporal concept.
2. Time did not exist until the universe expanded.

Thus, there can be no Cause to the Effect of expansion.

 

Thank you for playing, come again.

 

 

That is the scientific explanation.

The layperson like me, simply says you don't have to know how to build a car engine to know that it doesn't run  on pixie dust.

Cognition is not required for the universe to occur. This is something the theist refuses to accept. And they also refuse to accept the reality that humans make up all sorts of crap even outside the issue of a god, and humans have always  been capable of believing false things.

I know what a human brain looks like. I know that the universe does not resemble the structure of a human brain. Since that is the case, it cannot think, so the matter and energy that came about cannot be the result of a cognition. Otherwise my car can run on pixie dust merely because I like the idea of pixies.

But like most theists, instead of getting with the times, they allow their egos and emotions to rule them and "The Theist" will simply try to make more shit up to ignore the fact that he is selling garbage.

I value more the theist who merely says "It's just something I like believing", that is honest. But it is bullshit to sell something you know damned well is not universal.

As an aside Luis, glad to see you posting again. Haven't seen you around in a while.

 

 

 

So if you and I were walking through the woods and found a translucent laying there and I asked "where did that come from?", you would respond, "nowhere, it just exists inexplicably"? Even the layperson knows that's absurd. Even my 4 year old knows better than that. Now, increase the ball to the size of a car. Same problem. Now a planet, solar system, galaxy...universe. Same problem. So answer one thing for me, you stand by the idea that your car won't run on pixies because that is continually verified and never falsified by your experience. In my experience, something beginning to exist with NO CAUSE whatsoever is always verified and NEVER falsified. Apparently you've seen this falsified. Do tell!

And here comes the "watchmaker" argument.

Ok we can have it your way. See if you can spot the pattern.

translucent=Allah did it, does that work for you? It should, because Muslims believe the world was made just like you do.

translucent=Jesus did it

translucent=My snarfwidgit did it

Me on the other hand, see the universe and life in it as mere processes that start off small and collect and become bigger from those smaller parts, much like rain collects on the ground and then grows to become a puddle which is much more complex than a single rain drop.

So since we can verify that cars don't run on pixie dust that means pixies are real? Is that what you are trying to say?

Ok, my car doesn't run on 72 to virgins, so Allah exists because we know cars don't run on virgins.

Cant you see how fucking absurd your logic is.

Quote:
Now a planet, solar system, galaxy...universe. Same problem. So answer one thing for me, you stand by the idea that your car won't run on pixies because that is continually verified and never falsified by your experience.

1. Plants are explained by evolution. 2. our solar system is explained by the sun and it's gravity. 3.  Our galaxy and the universe is explained by the big bang. You have no business trying to treat real things as being the same as something you damned well know is fucking made up. THEY DO NOT have the same problem as "pixies". Because those are real. pixies are not real.

OTHERWISE I could simply claim "since we don't know everything an invisible pixie started everything". It would be equally valid by your standard because "anything goes" would justify a pixie and would have the same amount of evidence as any god claim humans have ever made.

 

 

 

Are you really this handicapped? The Watchmaker argues for DESIGN. I am talking about CAUSALITY. TELL ME ONE THING THAT YOU KNOW THAT EXISTS, THAT HAS NO CAUSE WHATSOEVER. Don't worry, I'll wait. While you're busy trying to think of one for the next 60 years, someone else can tell me, can you think of anything, other than A CHOICE, (WHICH IS ONLY POSSIBLE FOR AN ENTITY WITH FREE WILL, MAKING IT PERSONAL), that can close a causal loop?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:jackspell

Brian37 wrote:

jackspell wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Cause and effect...


The 1st premise fails, logically because it ignores the reality of cause and effect, that is to say that effect MUST be seperated from cause by a period of time.

A simultanious cause and effect are equal to an uncaused effect. There is no difference.

Time, the temporal dimension of space, did not exist until the Plank Instant AFTER the rapid expansion of the primordial universe. Since time did not exist until a point AFTER the 'effect' of expansion, there can be no CAUSE.

1. Cause and Effect are a temporal concept.
2. Time did not exist until the universe expanded.

Thus, there can be no Cause to the Effect of expansion.

 

Thank you for playing, come again.

 

 

That is the scientific explanation.

The layperson like me, simply says you don't have to know how to build a car engine to know that it doesn't run  on pixie dust.

Cognition is not required for the universe to occur. This is something the theist refuses to accept. And they also refuse to accept the reality that humans make up all sorts of crap even outside the issue of a god, and humans have always  been capable of believing false things.

I know what a human brain looks like. I know that the universe does not resemble the structure of a human brain. Since that is the case, it cannot think, so the matter and energy that came about cannot be the result of a cognition. Otherwise my car can run on pixie dust merely because I like the idea of pixies.

But like most theists, instead of getting with the times, they allow their egos and emotions to rule them and "The Theist" will simply try to make more shit up to ignore the fact that he is selling garbage.

I value more the theist who merely says "It's just something I like believing", that is honest. But it is bullshit to sell something you know damned well is not universal.

As an aside Luis, glad to see you posting again. Haven't seen you around in a while.

 

 

 

So if you and I were walking through the woods and found a translucent laying there and I asked "where did that come from?", you would respond, "nowhere, it just exists inexplicably"? Even the layperson knows that's absurd. Even my 4 year old knows better than that. Now, increase the ball to the size of a car. Same problem. Now a planet, solar system, galaxy...universe. Same problem. So answer one thing for me, you stand by the idea that your car won't run on pixies because that is continually verified and never falsified by your experience. In my experience, something beginning to exist with NO CAUSE whatsoever is always verified and NEVER falsified. Apparently you've seen this falsified. Do tell!

And here comes the "watchmaker" argument.

Ok we can have it your way. See if you can spot the pattern.

translucent=Allah did it, does that work for you? It should, because Muslims believe the world was made just like you do.

translucent=Jesus did it

translucent=My snarfwidgit did it

Me on the other hand, see the universe and life in it as mere processes that start off small and collect and become bigger from those smaller parts, much like rain collects on the ground and then grows to become a puddle which is much more complex than a single rain drop.

So since we can verify that cars don't run on pixie dust that means pixies are real? Is that what you are trying to say?

Ok, my car doesn't run on 72 to virgins, so Allah exists because we know cars don't run on virgins.

Cant you see how fucking absurd your logic is.

Quote:
Now a planet, solar system, galaxy...universe. Same problem. So answer one thing for me, you stand by the idea that your car won't run on pixies because that is continually verified and never falsified by your experience.

1. Plants are explained by evolution. 2. our solar system is explained by the sun and it's gravity. 3.  Our galaxy and the universe is explained by the big bang. You have no business trying to treat real things as being the same as something you damned well know is fucking made up. THEY DO NOT have the same problem as "pixies". Because those are real. pixies are not real.

OTHERWISE I could simply claim "since we don't know everything an invisible pixie started everything". It would be equally valid by your standard because "anything goes" would justify a pixie and would have the same amount of evidence as any god claim humans have ever made.

 

 

 

Are you really this handicapped? The Watchmaker argues for DESIGN. I am talking about CAUSALITY. TELL ME ONE THING THAT YOU KNOW THAT EXISTS, THAT HAS NO CAUSE WHATSOEVER. Don't worry, I'll wait. While you're busy trying to think of one for the next 60 years, someone else can tell me, can you think of anything, other than A CHOICE, (WHICH IS ONLY POSSIBLE FOR AN ENTITY WITH FREE WILL, MAKING IT PERSONAL), that can close a causal loop?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote:  I also

Teralek wrote:

 

I also don't think I have to explain how the intelligence or intent came to be. The ID theory doesn't have to answer that. It's impossible. As is impossible to explain who made the "strings"...

Well since you are proposing an intelligence for the "fine tuning" you would have to a proper explanation for how ti came to be, second you have to explain how this intelligence was able to affect this universe, second to affect it has to be part of this universe, then with all the given evidence that this universe came from a singularity that released it's energy (the big bang theory and the evidence for it) you now have to provide evidence that it is all wrong, and that some intelligence or intelligent being was already in this universe and affected it....oh and have to some how explain how all the evidence that points to the big bang theory or similar event. Then you have to explain where this intelligence came from....as you can see you have some major holes in your theory....it really explains nothing, it provides no predictions and has zero evidence to back it up.
 

Quote:
]

what's, funny is that I'm the one who suppose to be dogmatic here... but I concede you could be correct... With comments like those you're not showing ANY skepticism to your side of the story!

why is "intent" unnatural??!! Do you have any idea of what you've just said?! You could translate that into: "I believe in the Natural numbers (0,1,2,3,4,... ad infinitum), but I don't believe in number 1!" Intelligence is a natural event!!
 

Yes WE simply don't know, that's why this theory is valid.

I never said intent is unnatural, I said there no reason to believe a supernatural event (an intelligence that some how can survive without a physical body in this universe yet somehow affect this universe) So far everything points towards an naturally occurring event without intelligence behind it, much like lightning happens without an intelligence behind it or the formations of planets or suns happen without intelligence happen, that is naturally occurring events....it seems you are very closed minded really at least I can accept different possibilities provided the evidence is there or at least a logical explanation. However you seem to just say, god (or an intelligence) did it....that's it, you dismiss all other explanations. I haven't dismissed any other explanation provided it can be properly explained with the evidence at hand, I simply dismiss yours because you lack any proper evidence or even a decent scientific explanation for yours.


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:jackspell

Louis_Cypher wrote:

jackspell wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Cause and effect...


The 1st premise fails, logically because it ignores the reality of cause and effect, that is to say that effect MUST be separated from cause by a period of time.

A simultaneous cause and effect are equal to an uncaused effect. There is no difference.

Time, the temporal dimension of space, did not exist until the Plank Instant AFTER the rapid expansion of the primordial universe. Since time did not exist until a point AFTER the 'effect' of expansion, there can be no CAUSE.

1. Cause and Effect are a temporal concept.
2. Time did not exist until the universe expanded.

Thus, there can be no Cause to the Effect of expansion.

 

Thank you for playing, come again.

 

 

That is the scientific explanation.

The layperson like me, simply says you don't have to know how to build a car engine to know that it doesn't run  on pixie dust.

Cognition is not required for the universe to occur. This is something the theist refuses to accept. And they also refuse to accept the reality that humans make up all sorts of crap even outside the issue of a god, and humans have always  been capable of believing false things.

I know what a human brain looks like. I know that the universe does not resemble the structure of a human brain. Since that is the case, it cannot think, so the matter and energy that came about cannot be the result of a cognition. Otherwise my car can run on pixie dust merely because I like the idea of pixies.

But like most theists, instead of getting with the times, they allow their egos and emotions to rule them and "The Theist" will simply try to make more shit up to ignore the fact that he is selling garbage.

I value more the theist who merely says "It's just something I like believing", that is honest. But it is bullshit to sell something you know damned well is not universal.

As an aside Luis, glad to see you posting again. Haven't seen you around in a while.

 

 

 

So if you and I were walking through the woods and found a translucent laying there and I asked "where did that come from?", you would respond, "nowhere, it just exists inexplicably"? Even the layperson knows that's absurd. Even my 4 year old knows better than that. Now, increase the ball to the size of a car. Same problem. Now a planet, solar system, galaxy...universe. Same problem. So answer one thing for me, you stand by the idea that your car won't run on pixies because that is continually verified and never falsified by your experience. In my experience, something beginning to exist with NO CAUSE whatsoever is always verified and NEVER falsified. Apparently you've seen this falsified. Do tell!

 

What the hell is a 'translucent'???

Did you just go from the trite and absurd, frequently debunked Kalom's Argument to the even more absurd and idiotic Watchmaker spiel??? Really? Is this your first time to ever talk to an atheist???

 

The watchmaker argument fails because it conflates NATURAL objects with ARTIFACTS (man made objects) A car is a man made object...an artifact, a rock isn't. Primitives assumed that because we can manufacture objects that everything they see must somehow magically be manufactured... primitives still do.

I won't bother to discuss science or logic with you for the same reason I won't discuss algebra with my dog... he's a brilliant dog, but in the end, he will never be able to solve a quadratic equation, he's a dog. You are a believer in magic, therefore, you can not understand or accept science OR logic so instead I will ask you; How does the magic work? How does your god *do* anything???? 

 

LC >;-}>

 

Maybe if you comprehended the arguments you could respond rationally. Design is inferred when something exhibits "specified complexity". I invite you to look into what that is. Then maybe you'll refrain from posting something as stupid as to imply that you can't see signs of design in natural objects. Biological organisms are composed in such a way you can't even appreciate. Take the human genome. Unfathomably complex. Probability of it forming by chance is between 4^180^110000 and 4^360^110000. Yet it is SPECIFIC. It is the blue prints for creating a human being. Therefore, design is inferred. Atleast by someone with an IQ higher than your dog.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4157
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote:Is there a

Teralek wrote:

Is there a badge definition page? I noticed a new badge since I came "Theistard" I'm not sure what it is.

 

Louis_Cypher wrote:

I won't bother to discuss science or logic with you for the same reason I won't discuss algebra with my dog... he's a brilliant dog, but in the end, he will never be able to solve a quadratic equation, he's a dog. 

 I think LC just made the official definition of theistard.

Prozac, check your PM settings.


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 590
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Teralek

latincanuck wrote:

Teralek wrote:

 

I also don't think I have to explain how the intelligence or intent came to be. The ID theory doesn't have to answer that. It's impossible. As is impossible to explain who made the "strings"...

Well since you are proposing an intelligence for the "fine tuning" you would have to a proper explanation for how ti came to be, second you have to explain how this intelligence was able to affect this universe, second to affect it has to be part of this universe, then with all the given evidence that this universe came from a singularity that released it's energy (the big bang theory and the evidence for it) you now have to provide evidence that it is all wrong, and that some intelligence or intelligent being was already in this universe and affected it....oh and have to some how explain how all the evidence that points to the big bang theory or similar event. Then you have to explain where this intelligence came from....as you can see you have some major holes in your theory....it really explains nothing, it provides no predictions and has zero evidence to back it up.
 

Quote:
]

what's, funny is that I'm the one who suppose to be dogmatic here... but I concede you could be correct... With comments like those you're not showing ANY skepticism to your side of the story!

why is "intent" unnatural??!! Do you have any idea of what you've just said?! You could translate that into: "I believe in the Natural numbers (0,1,2,3,4,... ad infinitum), but I don't believe in number 1!" Intelligence is a natural event!!
 

Yes WE simply don't know, that's why this theory is valid.

I never said intent is unnatural, I said there no reason to believe a supernatural event (an intelligence that some how can survive without a physical body in this universe yet somehow affect this universe) So far everything points towards an naturally occurring event without intelligence behind it, much like lightning happens without an intelligence behind it or the formations of planets or suns happen without intelligence happen, that is naturally occurring events....it seems you are very closed minded really at least I can accept different possibilities provided the evidence is there or at least a logical explanation. However you seem to just say, god (or an intelligence) did it....that's it, you dismiss all other explanations. I haven't dismissed any other explanation provided it can be properly explained with the evidence at hand, I simply dismiss yours because you lack any proper evidence or even a decent scientific explanation for yours.

It came to be the same way the 11th dimension in the string theory came to be. There is no way an explanation can be given, it's outside the known physical realm. In the Matrix analogy that's like asking someone who never left the Matrix how the Matrix came to be. A physical world is inconcievable in a digital world. If I could answer all those questions I would publish a scientific paper and win a nobel prize. This is my educated guess. I believe in the Big Bang theory, so I don't understand your questions that seem to indicate a contradiction between ID and the Big Bang.

It was not a "supernatural" event. It was a Preternatural event. No I don't just say an intelligence did it. I say that I think it's the most likely option... I cast doubt under my own belief.

EDIT: If I'm behind the MAtrix analogy. This intelligence is located outside the known Universe.

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Teralek

latincanuck wrote:

Teralek wrote:

 

I also don't think I have to explain how the intelligence or intent came to be. The ID theory doesn't have to answer that. It's impossible. As is impossible to explain who made the "strings"...

Well since you are proposing an intelligence for the "fine tuning" you would have to a proper explanation for how ti came to be, second you have to explain how this intelligence was able to affect this universe, second to affect it has to be part of this universe, then with all the given evidence that this universe came from a singularity that released it's energy (the big bang theory and the evidence for it) you now have to provide evidence that it is all wrong, and that some intelligence or intelligent being was already in this universe and affected it....oh and have to some how explain how all the evidence that points to the big bang theory or similar event. Then you have to explain where this intelligence came from....as you can see you have some major holes in your theory....it really explains nothing, it provides no predictions and has zero evidence to back it up.
 

Quote:
]

what's, funny is that I'm the one who suppose to be dogmatic here... but I concede you could be correct... With comments like those you're not showing ANY skepticism to your side of the story!

why is "intent" unnatural??!! Do you have any idea of what you've just said?! You could translate that into: "I believe in the Natural numbers (0,1,2,3,4,... ad infinitum), but I don't believe in number 1!" Intelligence is a natural event!!
 

Yes WE simply don't know, that's why this theory is valid.

I never said intent is unnatural, I said there no reason to believe a supernatural event (an intelligence that some how can survive without a physical body in this universe yet somehow affect this universe) So far everything points towards an naturally occurring event without intelligence behind it, much like lightning happens without an intelligence behind it or the formations of planets or suns happen without intelligence happen, that is naturally occurring events....it seems you are very closed minded really at least I can accept different possibilities provided the evidence is there or at least a logical explanation. However you seem to just say, god (or an intelligence) did it....that's it, you dismiss all other explanations. I haven't dismissed any other explanation provided it can be properly explained with the evidence at hand, I simply dismiss yours because you lack any proper evidence or even a decent scientific explanation for yours.

You don't have to ANYTHING about the designer to infer design. Tell me this, when archeologists unearth spearheads and pottery, do they have to know what civilization it was or anything about them? What about if we find a supply of machinery on the moon? You won't accept that it is designed until you find the beings that put it there? What if you walk in your neighbor's house and find him on the floor dead, with a knife in his chest and a trail of footprints leading out of the house. If you weren't ever able to find the OBVIOUS INTELLIGENCE responsible for this DESIGNED foul play, would you really conclude it was natural causes? If so, you are in no danger of a in C.S.I.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Teralek

latincanuck wrote:

Teralek wrote:

 

I also don't think I have to explain how the intelligence or intent came to be. The ID theory doesn't have to answer that. It's impossible. As is impossible to explain who made the "strings"...

Well since you are proposing an intelligence for the "fine tuning" you would have to a proper explanation for how ti came to be, second you have to explain how this intelligence was able to affect this universe, second to affect it has to be part of this universe, then with all the given evidence that this universe came from a singularity that released it's energy (the big bang theory and the evidence for it) you now have to provide evidence that it is all wrong, and that some intelligence or intelligent being was already in this universe and affected it....oh and have to some how explain how all the evidence that points to the big bang theory or similar event. Then you have to explain where this intelligence came from....as you can see you have some major holes in your theory....it really explains nothing, it provides no predictions and has zero evidence to back it up.
 

Quote:
]

what's, funny is that I'm the one who suppose to be dogmatic here... but I concede you could be correct... With comments like those you're not showing ANY skepticism to your side of the story!

why is "intent" unnatural??!! Do you have any idea of what you've just said?! You could translate that into: "I believe in the Natural numbers (0,1,2,3,4,... ad infinitum), but I don't believe in number 1!" Intelligence is a natural event!!
 

Yes WE simply don't know, that's why this theory is valid.

I never said intent is unnatural, I said there no reason to believe a supernatural event (an intelligence that some how can survive without a physical body in this universe yet somehow affect this universe) So far everything points towards an naturally occurring event without intelligence behind it, much like lightning happens without an intelligence behind it or the formations of planets or suns happen without intelligence happen, that is naturally occurring events....it seems you are very closed minded really at least I can accept different possibilities provided the evidence is there or at least a logical explanation. However you seem to just say, god (or an intelligence) did it....that's it, you dismiss all other explanations. I haven't dismissed any other explanation provided it can be properly explained with the evidence at hand, I simply dismiss yours because you lack any proper evidence or even a decent scientific explanation for yours.

You don't have to ANYTHING about the designer to infer design. Tell me this, when archeologists unearth spearheads and pottery, do they have to know what civilization it was or anything about them? What about if we find a supply of machinery on the moon? You won't accept that it is designed until you find the beings that put it there? What if you walk in your neighbor's house and find him on the floor dead, with a knife in his chest and a trail of footprints leading out of the house. If you weren't ever able to find the OBVIOUS INTELLIGENCE responsible for this DESIGNED foul play, would you really conclude it was natural causes? If so, you are in no danger of a in C.S.I.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig