Originally posted by AProdigy Nope, I sufficiently provided a point and explination before. You cannot refute it without providing your own arguments. The burdon is on you, my friend.
Ah, the typical "backtrack and bury my head in the sand" routine. Sorry, thought you wanted an intelligent argument. Guess not.
Originally posted by Palynka Ah, the typical "backtrack and bury my head in the sand" routine. Sorry, thought you wanted an intelligent argument. Guess not.
Ah, the typical ignore the arguments and result to insults because you realize that your bluf has been called. I thought you wanted to an argument where you had to support your points, not just make them. My bad.
Originally posted by AProdigy Ah, the typical ignore the arguments and result to insults because you realize that your bluf has been called. I thought you wanted to an argument where you had to support your points, not just make them. My bad.
I'll repeat: If you say that it points to the likelihood of there being a God, then prove it.
But you can't, for the simple reason that there is no way to evaluate any alternative scenarios.
Originally posted by Palynka I'll repeat: If you say that it points to the likelihood of there being a God, then prove it.
But you can't, for the simple reason that there is no way to evaluate any alternative scenarios.
As I said before...
The idea that an infinitely complex universe exists suggests that someone had to design it. The fact that many physically separated people groups independently developed various religions that all preach the same basic principals of goodness would suggest that there is an attainable spiritual influence present in our world.
Originally posted by AProdigy As I said before...
The idea that an infinitely complex universe exists suggests that someone had to design it. The fact that many physically separated people groups independently developed various religions that all preach the same basic principals of goodness would suggest that there is an attainable spiritual influence present in our world.
Why would it be less complex if the design was non-sentient?
If those principles of goodness were drawn from Natural Law theory, would the similarities be higher or lower?
Originally posted by Palynka Why would it be less complex if the design was non-sentient?
If those principles of goodness were drawn from Natural Law theory, would the similarities be higher or lower?
Although you haven't really provided any arguments to support a non-sentient view, you are finally back on track with the argument. Why couldn't you have brought this up 10 posts ago and saved us all that pointless bantering?
Anyway, the complex design argument is as such. The universe is infinately complex, with the laws of nature and science being such that is anything were different, the whole universe could fall apart. That such a fine-tuned environment was a result of chance in unlikely. It is more likely that is was intelligently designed. For instance, if I'm hiking through the jungle and find a carved statue, I assume there was a carver. It is possible that the rock was naturally formed into the perfect shape of a man's head, but it is far more likely that it was carved.
This is the same argument I was making before with the gun and neighbor. The EVIDENCE points to the likelyhood that you killed him. You can pose an alternative possibility, but the likelyhood of that alternative being true is far less.
Originally posted by AProdigy Although you haven't really provided any arguments to support a non-sentient view, you are finally back on track with the argument. Why couldn't you have brought this up 10 posts ago and saved us all that pointless bantering?
Anyway, the complex design argument is as such. The universe is infinately complex, with the laws of nature and science being ...[text shortened]... e an alternative possibility, but the likelyhood of that alternative being true is far less.
The flaw in your argument is that you can assume there was a carver of that rock, because you were able to compare with thousands of rocks that do not look anything alike. It is this last fact that allows you to say that it is highly unlikely that the rock was carved as such without design.
With the universe, you have no basis of reference. Complexity is a relative concept, opposed to simplicity. You say our universe is complex, but complex relative to what? You can only (at least so far) know this universe and are therefore without frame of reference to judge complexity.
Originally posted by Palynka False. The mere fact that things exist cannot distinguish in any way between the theist hypotheses for explaining the existence of the universe or the non-theists ones.
If there is no informational value (for the purpose of distinguishing between the two hypothesis) in the fact that things exist, then it is NOT evidence.
Evuidence is all about interpretation. Even scientists disagree on the significance of certain "evidence" . A believer can see evidence of God at work all over the place. An Atheist will interpret the evidence differently. To say there is no evidence is not true , what you are arguing about is interpretation.
Originally posted by knightmeister Evuidence is all about interpretation. Even scientists disagree on the significance of certain "evidence" . A believer can see evidence of God at work all over the place. An Atheist will interpret the evidence differently. To say there is no evidence is not true , what you are arguing about is interpretation.
Although that is mostly true, what I'm arguing here is that the matter of existence is not interpretable in a logically consistent way. Also, there are limits to interpretability.
For example, one is not being rational by saying that my hair being brown is evidence that man has been on the moon. There needs to be a logically consistent support to that interpretation. It is that logical support that I'm arguing against.
It does not actually matter whether or not the universe is complex; it merely matters that it exists. The best and simplest proof of God is the 'Prime Mover' theory.
Even in the 'Big Bang' theory, something must have always been there, before anything else; self-existing matter that caused the explosion that became the universe. That the matter was self-existing is in a way enough to qualify it as a god.
All that remains, if you accept this, is the manner of god you have to deal with. I myself believe in the all-powerful, all-good etc., etc., God known to Muslims, Jews, and Christians. This is where all the arguments about complexity and religion as a common human development come in.
Originally posted by PAshour It does not actually matter whether or not the universe is complex; it merely matters that it exists. The best and simplest proof of God is the 'Prime Mover' theory.
Even in the 'Big Bang' theory, something must have always been there, before anything else; self-existing matter that caused the explosion that became the universe. That the matter was self- ...[text shortened]... where all the arguments about complexity and religion as a common human development come in.
Once again, If God could have always existed, certainly so could the universe,
An eternally existing universe would count as a god, wouldn't it? Besides, if the universe is eternal, how do you account for the second law of thermodynamics, which seems to be quite strongly in place?
Originally posted by PAshour [b]An eternally existing universe would count as a god, wouldn't it?
The Universe may have eternally existed but it may not have always been the way it is now. Also if you want to call the universe god be my guest. Is you god a knowing god? Did your god create the prostate gland and breast cancer
Originally posted by Palynka The flaw in your argument is that you can assume there was a carver of that rock, because you were able to compare with thousands of rocks that do not look anything alike. It is this last fact that allows you to say that it is highly unlikely that the rock was carved as such without design.
With the universe, you have no basis of reference. Complexity is ...[text shortened]... ast so far) know this universe and are therefore without frame of reference to judge complexity.
Good discussion guys. I thought I would throw in my two pennies, hope you don’t mind
You are saying (please correct me if im wrong) that the rock analogy is incorrect because we have reference and the Universe does not apply because we cant reference to see if it relatively complex to other universes.
How about planet earth? We have seen many planets for reference and ours is formed. (note im not saying this is proof only evidence for a possible God)
Originally posted by 667joe Once again, If God could have always existed, certainly so could the universe,
That is because the universe had a start and changed (going by the big bang) where God is unchanging, he is always the same, that is the difference of being outside of time and inside.
If the universe was outside of time as God is it never would have banged. Our science shows that it started and will even end. Anything outside of time is not subject to beginnings and ends as we understand it.
11 Aug '07 13:53
Evidence
Back to Top