God probably exists.

[watsup]

Explain why atoms form life...cheers.

The monkey thing was a demonstration that my theory is falsifiable...get a monkey to write a novel and you would have proved that complex balanced systems do not require intent.

I have already said that there is no element in “life” that was not already present in the universe, so it just took the right conditions
and lots of time. Scientists continue to study it and there are various theories that’s you could research if you so desire. But the scientists don’t just throw up their hands and proclaim “there must be a designer!” like you do. They keep looking. That is the difference between the curiosity of science and the absolute certainty of those who believe in intelligent design.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Despite all the sophistry, the foundation of the intelligent design argument is nothing more than incredulity. Even mainstream religions acknowledge the mythological component in some of the texts.

 

[zyzygy]

I don't know that there is a goal, but I think I'm being completely reasonable in asserting that it may be the case that only thought exists, that such a situation requires a thinker creating the Universe, that such a thinker would almost certainly have objectives for us in mind. If you wrote a program you'd want the characters in it to have goals and objectives that benefited them...why else would you bother?

You are wrong there. If I cross the road and see a car bearing down on me at high speed I don't need to jump out of the way because only thought exists? No brain, no thoughts.

 

[zyzygy]

The anthroporphic concept does. If things didn't work out the way it did, then we wouldn't be here to argue it. We do not have any other universes to compare this one to. Therefore, it's nothing but the argument from personal incredulity. We don't know how many 'failed universes' started up and didn't succeed. We don't have anything to compare things with. Therefore, that particularly line of reasoning is null and void.

Hence the extra dimensions in string theory.

 

[RAMOSS]

Hence the extra dimensions in string theory.

The problem with string theory is there is no way to test it (yet)

 

[Big Eye]

The anthroporphic concept does. If things didn't work out the way it did, then we wouldn't be here to argue it. We do not have any other universes to compare this one to. Therefore, it's nothing but the argument from personal incredulity. We don't know how many 'failed universes' started up and didn't succeed. We don't have anything to compare things with. Therefore, that particularly line of reasoning is null and void.

This is not an argument from incredulity, this is an argument from an absolute fact...thought exists. The "designedness" is simply a supporting factor to my main point that it may be the case that only thought exists. The concept of mind independence serves no purpose (other than the denial of God ,as I've already pointed out).

So to make clear, in this theory only thought exists, that implies we exist within the product of a greater mind (if we believe in external reality) and that in turn is backed up by the designedness of the Universe .

 

[Big Eye]

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.

I think he made some very interesting points, but maybe he's got more important things to do than try and convince atheists that perhaps they might be wrong...there's only so many times you can hit your head against a brick wall lol.

 

[Big Eye]

To repeat: There is no objective scientific evidence. And thus I am making the logical conclusion. Anything beyond that is just belief.

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.

 

[Big Eye]

I have already said that there is no element in “life” that was not already present in the universe, so it just took the right conditions
and lots of time. Scientists continue to study it and there are various theories that’s you could research if you so desire. But the scientists don’t just throw up their hands and proclaim “there must be a designer!” like you do. They keep looking. That is the difference between the curiosity of science and the absolute certainty of those who believe in intelligent design.

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.

 

[Big Eye]

Despite all the sophistry, the foundation of the intelligent design argument is nothing more than incredulity. Even mainstream religions acknowledge the mythological component in some of the texts.

That may be the case , but in terms of backing up another theory and neatly tying in with it, it's good supporting evidence.

 

[Big Eye]

You are wrong there. If I cross the road and see a car bearing down on me at high speed I don't need to jump out of the way because only thought exists? No brain, no thoughts.

You completely misunderstand my argument.

Reality is made from laws (rather than solid mind independent stuff) that mean you die, maybe in pain, if you don't get out of the way. Reality most definitely exists in this theory.

 

[devildavid]

You completely misunderstand my argument.

Reality is made from laws (rather than solid mind independent stuff) that mean you die, maybe in pain, if you don't get out of the way. Reality most definitely exists in this theory.

Made from laws? What does that mean? Laws are man made concepts. Man did not make reality but exists in it. Reality cannot be made from any man made concept.

 

[devildavid]

This is not an argument from incredulity, this is an argument from an absolute fact...thought exists. The "designedness" is simply a supporting factor to my main point that it may be the case that only thought exists. The concept of mind independence serves no purpose (other than the denial of God ,as I've already pointed out).

So to make clear, in this theory only thought exists, that implies we exist within the product of a greater mind (if we believe in external reality) and that in turn is backed up by the designedness of the Universe .

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

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes, I am. It answers nothing. It is unsupported, and does not show any way how it was done.

How can you say that its unsupported? what if the way it appears, behaves is exactly because it was designed to appear and behave that way? then by definition it would be supported.

You only refer to it as unsupported because you insist that there is another explanation for the way it appears and behaves, this is utter foolishness.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

However, making crystals do not.

Or, arches. We don't need will for arches.

Arches are complex, but exist in nature. Oh, and blancing rocks happen though natural, unintelligent forces too.

Nonsense, if those forces were designed then you cannot say the balancing rocks exist without intelligence, the ability for these remarkable things to exist does not show that no intelligence lies behind it all.

 

[zyzygy]

I think he made some very interesting points, but maybe he's got more important things to do than try and convince atheists that perhaps they might be wrong...there's only so many times you can hit your head against a brick wall lol.

Atheists have a similar brick wall problem with believers.

 

[zyzygy]

You completely misunderstand my argument.

Reality is made from laws (rather than solid mind independent stuff) that mean you die, maybe in pain, if you don't get out of the way. Reality most definitely exists in this theory.

In practice too, gods, not so much.

 

[zyzygy]

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

What designedness?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, You're not following the logic here . It is not the onus is on the one who makes the claim. It is the onus is on the one making the positive claim. I make no claim.

You stated a proposition

I am one of the few who will say the words that there is no god.

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:

"inference formed without proof or sufficient evidence"

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

I simply point out that any attempts at verifying the theist claims have failed.

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

The theist however is making a positive claim that something exists therefor the onus is entirely theirs.

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

"Nevertheless, it has been said whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim"

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

And no, I do not point out the failures of theists as a personal view. I point it out as an historical fact. If there was an exception then atheism would not exist.

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.

And you are misrepresenting what i said. I did not just stop at the complete lack of evidence. I also pointed out theists failure to produce even one good reason for a god. From those two facts i am left with the position that there is no good reasons for me to even consider a god to be any thing other than another fantasy.

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.

 

[RAMOSS]

This is not an argument from incredulity, this is an argument from an absolute fact...thought exists. The "designedness" is simply a supporting factor to my main point that it may be the case that only thought exists. The concept of mind independence serves no purpose (other than the denial of God ,as I've already pointed out).

So to make clear, in this theory only thought exists, that implies we exist within the product of a greater mind (if we believe in external reality) and that in turn is backed up by the designedness of the Universe .

Define 'thought'. What is 'thought'. Can you show it is more than the emergent qualtiy of the biochemistry of the brain? You are making unsupported claims to back up your premise, as well as vague definitions. Sorry, but becaues of that, it turns out you can't show your argument is sound.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I suppose everybody in the world has “beliefs”. “Believing” is the easiest thing in the world. Anybody can “believe” practically anything and have “reasons” to back it up.

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.

Note Trump’s “beliefs” about COVID which are only contributing to more deaths.

Even that dufus has a reason, it is likely to do with being unaccountable, deferential to nobody, a habit of getting what he wants by saying whatever comes into his head that might endear him to the neanderthal masses out there.

But in specific reference to “God”, an atheist has an UNDERSTANDING, not a “belief”, that since there is no evidence for a “God”, then the logical conclusion is that no such entity exists.

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

And thus, yes, I agree with David and not with you as regards the “beliefs” of atheists.

I see, very well.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

That's one example. Another example is a snowflake. A snowflake is very complex, yet it is only the interaction between oxygen, hydrogen and temperature. Much more complex that a house of cards.

I noticed you ignored the arches too. I can tell you hand wave evidence and examples, yet, are unable to support your thesis about 'god did it', except by logical fallacies.

The fact that material in the world around us exhibits apparently complex behavior cannot be used to support the claim the natural world as not designed.

If the universe was designed then I'd expect to see exactly what I do see, symmetries, structures, recursive structures, profound mathematical relationships, self organizing systems etc etc etc - these are things that I (as a designer myself) regard as hallmarks of intelligence.

 

[devildavid]

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.



Even that dufus has a reason, it is likely to do with being unaccountable, deferential to nobody, a habit of getting what he wants by saying whatever comes into his head that might endear him to the neanderthal masses out there.



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



I see, very well.

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

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.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Indeed. There are plenty of example where you can find naturally occurring structures that happened because of physical and chemical interactions that do not need a brain behind it, but the brain interprets as 'design', that says more about how the brain works than the nature of the structures.

What do you mean by "naturally occurring structures" and how do you know such things exist without some original impetus from a designer? Yes we can see these things all operating and interacting neatly but that's precisely what we see of stuff that we design too, the very things you interpret as the absence of design are in fact evidence of design.

 

[devildavid]

The fact that material in the world around us exhibits apparently complex behavior cannot be used to support the claim the natural world as not designed.

If the universe was designed then I'd expect to see exactly what I do see, symmetries, structures, recursive structures, profound mathematical relationships, self organizing systems etc etc etc - these are things that I (as a designer myself) regard as hallmarks of intelligence.

Complexity does not suggest design or lack of design. Design is a human created concept that cannot be applied to things that occur naturally without the thought and intent of a sentient being. 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. Only physical beings capable of putting together physical things can be said to be capable of the human concept of design.