God probably exists.

[Big Eye]

Science and nature have shown us that a predictable system does not necessarily need a “designer”. All it need do is follow the physics and biology of this particular universe.

You are not grasping the idea I'm putting forward here. Show me I'm wrong by explaining my theory in a clear simple way.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Science and nature have shown us that a predictable system does not necessarily need a “designer”. All it need do is follow the physics and biology of this particular universe.

This is pure conjecture, I know of no process that I can apply to some thing and determine if it was not designed.

Observing an automatic process that generates things (e.g. the formation of crystals) may imply that the thing (e.g. crystal) was not designed but that's only true if the process itself that generates them was not designed and I do not see any hope of every being able to prove that.

The frequent resort many here make to "natural" itself presumes no designer but there may well have been a designer who designed these "natural" processes.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Also Watsup, do you think its reasonable to believe that a thing that's capable of design was not itself designed?

Have you ever designed something? imagine designing a system that is able to design other systems.

 

[watsup]

This is pure conjecture, I know of no process that I can apply to some thing and determine if it was not designed.

Observing an automatic process that generates things (e.g. the formation of crystals) may imply that the thing (e.g. crystal) was not designed but that's only true if the process itself that generates them was not designed and I do not see any hope of every being able to prove that.

The frequent resort many here make to "natural" itself presumes no designer but there may well have been a designer who designed these "natural" processes.

Pure conjecture. Nature and the universe are proof of nature and th universe, nothing more. Any conjecture beyond that is based on myth and superstition today, just as it was back in the time of primitive humans. The “explanations” are a bit more complex, but they all scale down to the statement that “we don’t know how to explain (whatever), so we’ll just say that God is “needed” to do so. Very primitive thinking.

 

[RAMOSS]

Thought is the generation and passing on (or not) of information . That information can be true or false, the true stuff we call objective, the false stuff is always subjective (opinion)...though not all subjective thought is false.

My claims are...

Thoughts exist...without doubt.

If we can imagine a universe of thought rather than thought and non-thought, then that is a simpler concept.

We can imagine such a universe, therefore we can drop the unnecessary non-thought idea (Cheers Occam).

Mind has the ability to design things (like E-type Jags). If we wish to add a degree of predictable complexity (E-Type) we have to intend to. The universe is complex and predictable...far more so than the Jag, therefore it is reasonable to deduce that the universe is designed.

Both ideas support each other, God probably exists.

Is that what thought is? I mean, two rocks crash into each other, an dthere is the passing on of information, even if it's not interpreted.

It sounds like a bunch of poorly thought out gobblegook to me.

 

[watsup]

Also Watsup, do you think its reasonable to believe that a thing that's capable of design was not itself designed?

Have you ever designed something? imagine designing a system that is able to design other systems.

I have designed because I am a sentient being in this particular universe. That in no way implies that anything “natural” in the universe was “designed” by anything other than natural forces without any outside assistance from a “God”. That is simply a bridge too far with no actual evidence tomsupper it, just “supposing”, and that is all.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Pure conjecture. Nature and the universe are proof of nature and the universe, nothing more.

You misunderstand then what proof and evidence actually mean, no wonder much of what we discuss here confuses you.

As I explained (yet you ignored) evidence is that which is used to infer one thing from some other different thing.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I have designed because I am a sentient being in this particular universe. That in no way implies that anything “natural” in the universe was “designed” by anything other than natural forces without any outside assistance from a “God”. That is simply a bridge too far with no actual evidence tomsupper it, just “supposing”, and that is all.

I'm sorry once again you failed to answer a polite question, here it is again:

do you think its reasonable to believe that a thing that's capable of design was not itself designed?

Designing anything requires some effort but designing something that itself can design things must require a greater effort therefore it is unreasonable to assume we - people, capable of design - were not designed, claiming that we - designers - arose without being designed seems rather silly to me.

 

[watsup]

I agree with him that some here are having a problem thinking in a truly philosophical way...their thought processes are robotic...constant statements put out as fact.

Psychological projection.

 

[watsup]

I'm sorry once again you failed to answer a polite question, here it is again:


Designing anything requires some effort but designing something that itself can design things must require a greater effort therefore it is unreasonable to assume we - people, capable of design - were not designed, claiming that we - designers - arose without being designed seems rather silly to me.

A designer must have a deigner. Circular reasoning. I am not impressed.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

A designer must have a deigner. Circular reasoning. I am not impressed.

You're completely lost Watsup, it's pointless trying to engage you, you refuse to debate in an adult respectful manner and I'm afraid your opportunity to discuss these subjects with me is now being brought to an end, find someone else to satisfy your need for attention and approval.

 

[soylentgreen]

Now your all confused, I never said anything was your job or your duty, but you did make a claim, you presented a proposition without supporting evidence when you wrote "I'm one of the few who will say there is no God".



But it is an issue in our conversation, you have your beliefs and I have mine, you choose yours and I choose mine.



No, lets be clear here, they are things that you clearly believe are correct, that's all.



Presuming you agree with me is not what constitutes a strawman Soylent, I'm disappointed that your choosing to deliberately pretend you don't understand what's going on here.

Can I get a straight answer from you on a rather simple question, does the presence of flat earthers serve as proof that the earth is not a globe?

I also showed you a short segment from an encyclopedia entry on "Burden of proof" which makes it quite clear that all propositions whether they be "negative" or "positive" require the proponent to support them with evidence, sadly you chose to pretend that this isn't the case.

At this stage all we've established is that you believe the proposition "there is no God" is true yet cannot derive it from observations or evidence, you have just chosen to believe it and anyone can do that with anything, there's no intellectual componnet here at all other than a juvenile dislike of some things said by some theists, i.e. your position is whimsy, personal taste, a belief.

So once again i ask. When you said, "which claims" that was more a rhetorical comment than asking me to make up some claims?

I have no issue with beliefs. You must have though, by persisting to state what should be considered as obvious.

And no, i do not require to "believe"in the same sense that a theist believes, ie. without evidence.

Presuming i made any comment that suggests this analogy is appropriate is all your work, not mine.

And incorrect. Observation and evidence do demonstrate a lack of good reasons for a god. As well as any empirical evidence for one. You can continue to try and deny this with poor attacks on me or try to prove me wrong by offering up any evidence or good reason. I can see why you chose the former.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So once again i ask. When you said, "which claims" that was more a rhetorical comment than asking me to make up some claims?

I was not asking you to make up some claims, I was asking about this claim that you did make:

"I'm one of the few who will say there is no God".

Clearly you believe this but why? surely this is a reasonable question to ask, yes?

I have no issue with beliefs. You must have though, by persisting to state what should be considered as obvious.

And no, i do not require to "believe"in the same sense that a theist believes, ie. without evidence.

Presuming i made any comment that suggests this analogy is appropriate is all your work, not mine.

And incorrect. Observation and evidence do demonstrate a lack of good reasons for a god. As well as any empirical evidence for one. You can continue to try and deny this with poor attacks on me or try to prove me wrong by offering up any evidence or good reason. I can see why you chose the former.

I'm afraid I do not agree that my asking you to provide evidence for your claims constitutes "attacking" you Soylent.

 

[soylentgreen]

I was not asking you to make up some claims, I was asking about this claim that you did make:



Clearly you believe this but why? surely this is a reasonable question to ask, yes?



I'm afraid I do not agree that my asking you to provide evidence for your claims constitutes "attacking" you Soylent.

We appear to be going round in circles. I have provided my reasons. You ignore that and ask for reasons. It is the theist that must provide evidence or reason.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

We appear to be going round in circles. I have provided my reasons. You ignore that and ask for reasons. It is the theist that must provide evidence or reason.

I'm afraid I either have missed your answer or you have in fact not provided one, lets get down to brass tacks.

You assert "I'm one of the few who will say there is no God" so now, tell me should I believe you?

If your answer is "because there is no evidence" then why should I believe that? how do you know you'd be able to recognize any evidence if you did stumble upon it? why should I believe that you are a trustworthy arbiter of what constitutes such evidence?

 

[Redress]

Moderator's Warning:

Rather than hand out a bunch of infractions, I am just closing this thread. Remember, personal insults and attacks and off topic posts can lead to infractions. A bunch of you got lucky this time.