God probably exists.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Why do you keep talking about a designer when there is no indication that one is needed. I keep talking about evolution because that is the way that life has come to its present form on this planet and NO SENTIENT DESIGNER WAS IR IS NEEDED!

But how do you know that the systems of particles that lead to atoms and molecules existing and organizing and replicating and so on could exist without being designed? Many designed systems operate despite the fact that designer is not present or participating in the designed thing. If one designs a clock and starts it running then hands it to someone and leaves, the fact that the system functions by itself, without the designer visible or involved anymore does not mean that in fact it was not designed - this is obvious.

A typewritten page becomes legible because the DESIGNER, the HUMAN typist, intended it it say a certain thing. Bringing monkeys into the conversation means nothing at all because they obviously do not have the same mental capacity as a fully functional human. It’s simply a non-starter.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sherlock seems to have flown the coop. He hasn’t been around for a couple of days. Perhaps he has run out of the particular brand of intelligent design snake oil that he was selling. That’s okay. There are plenty of others here selling hero brands.

Thanks for another attack on my character.

 

[devildavid]

But how do you know that the systems of particles that lead to atoms and molecules existing and organizing and replicating and so on could exist without being designed? Many designed systems operate despite the fact that designer is not present or participating in the designed thing. If one designs a clock and starts it running then hands it to someone and leaves, the fact that the system functions by itself, without the designer visible or involved anymore does not mean that in fact it was not designed - this is obvious.

It is obvious that we know that clocks are man made and so fit into the human concept of design. There is no analogous connection between a clock and the universe. We cannot take the universe apart and show how the pieces fit together. We cannot explain how the universe was designed.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Thought is dependent on the physical existence of a being with the physical equipment required to produce thought. Without that, there are no thoughts.

How do you know? how did you prove this or is it just conjecture?

 

[soylentgreen]

You stated a proposition



If you were to say there are no two integers who ratio is the square root of two that too would be a proposition and you'd be expected to support it with a proof otherwise it is nothing other than a conjecture, I assume you know a conjecture is? if not here's a defintion:



So what part of all this did you regard as "not following the logic here"?



Which claims? and to what authority did you turn to establish if this is verified or not?



You are making a negative claim though, I quoted that above, here's what that leads to:



Just for the record Soylent, If I make a proposition I do support that with a reasoned argument and what I regard as evidence.



The presence of atheists does not serve as proof there is no Good just as the presence of flat earthers does not serve as proof the earth is not a globe.



As you say above "I am left with the position that there is no good reasons for me to even consider a god" which is as I sad a personal view and a reasonable one. I do not expect anyone to regard a proposition as true without some reasonable justification.

Something else you seem to be doing is ignoring the explanation when given.

As i have said, it is not my job to make claims about theism. It is their imagination, therefor any claim about it is theirs to make. And it is their authority i question. And without exception so far, all are flawed.

Just for the record, i will repeat again the good reason. There has been no empirical evidence given by a theist that demonstrates a god. Theists even fail to give a good reason for a god. Therefor i have no reason to consider this god thing to be anything other than fantasy.


The presence of an atheist means some theist went an opened their mouths and said something annoying. Happens a lot on the internet. Otherwise it serves no purpose.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

That people may think their beliefs are justified is not the same as the philosophical concept of a justified true belief.

That's for each one of us to decide for ourselves, not you.

The fact that there is zero evidence of god does not require any authority. No fact requires authority. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

The fact that you fail to recognize the evidence before you does not justify the proposition there is no evidence for God, your opinion is your opinion.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Complexity does not suggest design or lack of design.

How do you know?

Design is a human created concept that cannot be applied to things that occur naturally without the thought and intent of a sentient being.

Again, how do you know?

Since the existence of such a creator god has not been established, you can't take human subjective views of things and imply a design.

Yet this is your human subjective view David.

Only physical beings capable of putting together physical things can be said to be capable of the human concept of design.

Again, how do you know?

As is your custom David you post umpteen propositions that have meaning for you and elevate these to the status of universal truths, they aren't these are all just your own beliefs.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It is obvious that we know that clocks are man made and so fit into the human concept of design. There is no analogous connection between a clock and the universe.

But of course you do agree that a designed thing does not require the presence and continued involvement of the designer which was the point being made.

We cannot take the universe apart and show how the pieces fit together. We cannot explain how the universe was designed.

Science attempts to do just that David, discover how the pieces fit together. We can explain how the universe was designed because God has revealed himself as the designer, therefore God is how.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Something else you seem to be doing is ignoring the explanation when given.

I apologize if that's the case, perhaps you can enlighten me futher?

As i have said, it is not my job to make claims about theism.

I don't believe I said it was your job, so this is a strawman.

It is their imagination, therefor any claim about it is theirs to make. And it is their authority i question. And without exception so far, all are flawed.

But we each have authority to decide what we believe or not, you choose your beliefs and I choose mine, but not each others.

Just for the record, i will repeat again the good reason. There has been no empirical evidence given by a theist that demonstrates a god. Theists even fail to give a good reason for a god. Therefor i have no reason to consider this god thing to be anything other than fantasy.

These are merely expressions of your own possibly flawed opinions Soylent, either that or they are someone else's opinion that you have chosen to adopt.

The presence of an atheist means some theist went an opened their mouths and said something annoying. Happens a lot on the internet. Otherwise it serves no purpose.

But you agree that the presence of flat earthers does not prove the earth is not a globe, I'm so glad that we agree on this at least.

 

[watsup]

It is obvious that we know that clocks are man made and so fit into the human concept of design. There is no analogous connection between a clock and the universe. We cannot take the universe apart and show how the pieces fit together. We cannot explain how the universe was designed.

I agree. The theists keep trying to use design by humans to compare with design in nature, but the first is the result of our thought and intelligence while the second is the result of nature acting in accordance with the physics and biology of this particular universe and planet.

 

[Triton]

I agree. The theists keep trying to use design by humans to compare with design in nature, but the first is the result of our thought and intelligence while the second is the result of nature acting in accordance with the physics and biology of this particular universe and planet.

Wouldn't you say our thoughts and intelligence act in accordance to the physics and biology of this particular universe and planet as well?

 

[watsup]

I disagree, believing something to be true without reasons is - in my experience of people - very rare, everyone who holds this or that belief generally has some justification.

By who's authority do you claim "there is no evidence for a 'God'"? or this just a personal opinion?

I am sure that you agree that there can be good reasons and bad reasons, and the same goes for "justifications". In fact, basically your entire shtick here is supposedly finding poor reasoning and justifications by the atheists. Many times, those who "believe" whatever come up with the belief first and then back in the "reasons". In theology, this is called "apologism" whereby the "believers" have spent literally centuries trying to develop "reasons" for their belief in God, and when one "reason" is shown to be defective, they then jostle it around an move on to the next. For instance, "creationism" generally has been eased out by believers in favor of "intelligent design", even though both are basically the same.


apologist

noun

apol·​o·​gist | \ ə-ˈpä-lə-jist How to pronounce apologist (audio) \

: one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something

Thomas Aquinas has been hailed as a superb "apologist", but most of what he wrote was just nonsense. Sorta like you.


And I have said this before many times now: I have asked various people for decades now to provide me with even an iota of objective reality-based evidence fo their "God" and not a single person has stepped up with any, and so I have made the logical assessment that no such entity exists except in the heads of believers. "Witnessing" is subjective and thus does not meet the criteria.

That is all.

 

[watsup]

Wouldn't you say our thoughts and intelligence act in accordance to the physics and biology of this particular universe and planet as well?

No doubt. There is another thread on this particular subject and the assessment of the rationalists is that thought is self-contained within a person through electro-chemical reactions and no outside source is needed at all.

 

[watsup]

You don't seem to grasp logic, if you did you would realise that there is no objective scientific evidence that there is no goal for nature. You have faith that there isn't... but that's it.

Again, if you have any, let's see it. What, in your assessment, is the "goal of nature"?

 

[watsup]

The day scientists produce intelligent life from raw material they would have debunked my theory , until then my theory stands and works insofar as it is a clear explanation of reality.

You have a very simplistic view of science. Clearly, not all activities of the natural world can be replicated in the lab, at least not at this point. Evolution, for instance, takes literally millennia, and a scientist who might be lucky to live into his 80s clearly does not have that much time. What objective evidence do you have that intelligent life can't come from the materials in the universe over literally billions of years? TIME is the real "designer" in this case. No "higher power" entity is needed.

 

[Triton]

No doubt. There is another thread on this particular subject and the assessment of the rationalists is that thought is self-contained within a person through electro-chemical reactions and no outside source is needed at all.

I simply don't see how you can make the distinction between things designed by "thoughts and intelligence" and things designed by "physics and biology" if they are one and the same, albeit phrased differently. I'm only saying this as it is then not a valid critique of the theist's notion you originally cited.

 

[watsup]

I simply don't see how you can make the distinction between things designed by "thoughts and intelligence" and things designed by "physics and biology" if they are one and the same, albeit phrased differently. I'm only saying this as it is then not a valid critique of the theist's notion you originally cited.

There is no evidence that there is an intelligent designer. Nature is evidence of nature, nothing more. If you have any evidence of an intelligent designer, let's see it.

 

[Triton]

There is no evidence that there is an intelligent designer. Nature is evidence of nature, nothing more. If you have any evidence of an intelligent designer, let's see it.

I didn't claim that there is an intelligent designer and I wasn't actually disagreeing with you. I merely pointed out that your rebuttal, so to speak, wasn't really useful at all as it made a false distinction. All you "proved" is that nature is capable of intelligent design using humans as a mode of operation. Within this framework of logic, it actually does allow an intelligent designer to exist, although perhaps not as an ultimate cause of reality, but merely as a creator somewhere along the path of nature, extending back past the theorized origin of the known universe.

 

[watsup]

I didn't claim that there is an intelligent designer and I wasn't actually disagreeing with you. I merely pointed out that your rebuttal, so to speak, wasn't really useful at all as it made a false distinction. All you "proved" is that nature is capable of intelligent design using humans as a mode of operation. Within this framework of logic, it actually does allow an intelligent designer to exist, although perhaps not as an ultimate cause of reality, but merely as a creator somewhere along the path of nature, extending back past the theorized origin of the known universe.

No evidence of a "creator", so what is the logical conclusion?

 

[Triton]

No evidence of a "creator", so what is the logical conclusion?

The logical conclusion, given what you said, is that it is possible that nature can be responsible for intelligent design, but not that it necessitates that the universe was directly created by an intelligent being.

 

[watsup]

The logical conclusion, given what you said, is that it is possible that nature can be responsible for intelligent design, but not that it necessitates that the universe was directly created by an intelligent being.

Sort of. The key word here is INTELLIGENT, which implies some sort of CONSCIOUSNESS. In nature, whatever happens, happens, as .ong as it follows physics and biology in this universe. Nature is NEUTRAL, not “guiding” by making decisions based on consciousness. It really “just happens”.

 

[Triton]

Sort of. The key word here is INTELLIGENT, which implies some sort of CONSCIOUSNESS. In nature, whatever happens, happens, as .ong as it follows physics and biology in this universe. Nature is NEUTRAL, not “guiding” by making decisions based on consciousness. It really “just happens”.

Allegedly, yes. We arrived at the conclusion that an intelligent designer is possible through the mechanisms of nature, meaning that we cannot dismiss this notion entirely based on it seeming unlikely. What I want to arrive at is that that we have belief in both the theistic and secular directions.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Let's address each point you make, one at a time.

There is no evidence that there is an intelligent designer.

This has always made me smile, I hear it often from atheists. First it is surely impossible to prove, it is unfalsifiable there is no way to examine every particle, speck, law or event in the universe and prove that design, intelligence was not involved for any of them.

So when you say that you are doing nothing more than telling us what you personally believe. You must believe it of course because being a members of the set of atheists requires that you believe this, and like so many you comply because you want to be an atheist.

Nature is evidence of nature, nothing more.

This is probably an absurdity from a linguistic standpoint. Evidence is that which enables us to infer one thing from some other different thing. So I can infer the wind is blowing from seeing trees sway, therefore trees swaying is evidence of wind. To say that trees swaying is evidence of trees swaying is an improper use of the term.

If you have any evidence of an intelligent designer, let's see it.

This is an illogical question for you to ask because your first remark shows very clearly that you believe there is no such evidence so why would you ask me for something that you believe does not exist? Unless of course you don't actually believe what you said you did and in principle would admit to a designer if some kind of evidence was presented to you.

But if that is the case you surely must be able to say what it would be in that evidence that would lead you to admit to a designer, so therefore let me ask you what would you regard as evidence of a designer if you were ever to encounter it? if you cannot answer this question then I do not see how you can evaluate any evidence that I might present to you, if you don't have clear criteria then I do not see how you can be so confident there is no designer.

 

[watsup]

Let's address each point you make, one at a time.



This has always made me smile, I hear it often from atheists. First it is surely impossible to prove, it is unfalsifiable there is no way to examine every particle, speck, law or event in the universe and prove that design, intelligence was not involved for any of them.

So when you say that you are doing nothing more than telling us what you personally believe. You must believe it of course because being a members of the set of atheists requires that you believe this, and like so many you comply because you want to be an atheist.



This is probably an absurdity from a linguistic standpoint. Evidence is that which enables us to infer one thing from some other different thing. So I can infer the wind is blowing from seeing trees sway, therefore trees swaying is evidence of wind. To say that trees swaying is evidence of trees swaying is an improper use of the term.



This is an illogical question for you to ask because your first remark shows very clearly that you believe there is no such evidence so why would you ask me for something that you believe does not exist? Unless of course you don't actually believe what you said you did and in principle would admit to a designer if some kind of evidence was presented to you.

But if that is the case you surely must be able to say what it would be in that evidence that would lead you to admit to a designer, so therefore let me ask you what would you regard as evidence of a designer if you were ever to encounter it? if you cannot answer this question then I do not see how you can evaluate any evidence that I might present to you, if you don't have clear criteria then I do not see how you can be so confident there is no designer.

Same double-talk from you as always. I have addressed all of these points quite ably in the past.

 

[watsup]

Allegedly, yes. We arrived at the conclusion that an intelligent designer is possible through the mechanisms of nature, meaning that we cannot dismiss this notion entirely based on it seeming unlikely. What I want to arrive at is that that we have belief in both the theistic and secular directions.

Nowhere did I use the term "intelligent" with respect to nature's design. I have no reason to "believe" that there is anything but nature itself and that it has done just fine in NEUTRAL design according to physics and biology and no outside source.