8 edits
Originally posted by humy
“...Then if you say the chess playing computer has no mind in it, though it surely has intelligent planning behind it, then you can also believe that the universe has no mind in it but can have intelligent planning behind it. ...”
it does have mind in it: our minds. But that is not what you are talking about here and you are wrong yet again as usual: We KNOW ifiable physical evidence for such things as evolution -this makes it an asymmetrical dispute.
it does have mind in it: our minds.
I understand what you are saying. But I don't consider that excuse as following the evidence whereever it may lead.
That a "MIND" is identified is good enough. The identity of that mind or minds is another issue. What you are saying is that you will not follow the evidence of you a priori have decided there is no mind to that suspected identity.
Say I leave a pile of coins in a room scattered all over a table, and lock all doors, and windows so that NO ONE can enter that room, and have it watched.
The next day I only enter into that room and see a change. The coins have been stacked up in piles - pennies together, nickels together, dimes together, quarters together, half dollars together, and silver dollars together, what should I assume ?
It is rational to assume that someone has arranged the coins into their logical denominations. Now the room was locked and no one was seen going in or out after me.
You are saying that you refuse the evidence because it was impossible for anyone to enter the room. I could not do that. HOW someone got in remains a mystery. Regardless - the EVIDENCE strongly suggests someone somehow arranged those coins.
I do not reject the evidence of intelligent intervention because I know of no way anyone could have entered into the room. The identity and how that mind, whoever it was, got in, is just a mystery that I will have to accept. Perhaps it can be solved latter.
I call this not rejecting the evidence because where it leads is yet an unsolved problem. Its too bad that we cannot figure HOW anyone entered. Evidence suggest someone or something that KNOWS about coins entered.
But that is not what you are talking about here and you are wrong yet again as usual: We KNOW that a chess program was made by an intelligence because we have evidence for this. We have NO evidence that the universe was intelligently designed or even could have been ( to demonstrate that it could have been requires showing evidence that there exists an intelligence capable of physically making the entire universe! And to make matters worse, incredible claims demand incredible evidence ) -that's why I and any rational person in this age of reason do not believe that the universe is intellectually designed.
That is illegitimate reasoning and an unwillingness to go where the evidence points.
Your logic reminds me of a MIT professor who gave a lecture on the moon. He argued about the improbability of a planet satallite with our moon's relative proportions and proximity. The earth's moon simply should not be. Then at the end he said that because of these anamolies the moon does not exist!
Saying the moon did not exist of course derived chuckles from the student audience. We know that in spite of its improbable characteristics, our moon simply DOES exist.
What I see in your reasoning is simply strong will power to refuse to consider what the evidence indicates. You have decided that you will not follow that evidence because it may lead to a God.
Now. "encredible claims" call for "encredible evidence" ? This argument can be made ad infinitum. Then you can argue that encredible evidence needs more encredibile evidence, and that encredibe evidence requires even MORE encredible evidence.
There could be no end to arguing that you need more and more and more and more encredible evidence in an infinite regress. All encredible claims therefore have to be verified with more encredible evidence, ad infinitum.
9 edits
Originally posted by jaywill“...I understand what you are saying. But I don't consider that excuse as following the evidence whereever it may lead. ...”it does have mind in it: our minds.
I understand what you are saying. But I don't consider that excuse as following the evidence whereever it may lead.
That a "MIND" is identified is good enough. The identity of that mind or minds is another issue. What you are saying is that you will not follow the evidence of you a priori hav ible claims therefore have to be verified with more encredible evidence, ad infinitum.
what? We need an “excuse” to follow the evidence to wherever it leads?
Is that a misprint? If not:
What have you against being rational? Don't you like where the evidence points?
Why is it wrong to go wherever the evidence points? - I “admit” ( if that is the right word although I completely fail to see this as admitting to doing something wrong ) that my conclusions are evidence-based; so have I done something wrong merely by making my conclusions evidence based?
If so, then if I should not use evidence to draw conclusions about reality, what should I use instead? Blind faith? Or some other type of stupidity?
“...What you are saying is that you will not follow the evidence of you a priori have decided there is no mind to that suspected identity. ...”
no, I am saying the exact opposite. Therefore there is no supernatural god and creationism is false for all the evidence points against creationism and there is no evidence for something supernatural.
“...Say I leave a pile of coins in a room scattered all over a table, and lock all doors, and windows so that NO ONE can enter that room, and have it watched.
The next day I only enter into that room and see a change. The coins have been stacked up in piles - pennies together, nickels together, dimes together, quarters together, half dollars together, and silver dollars together, what should I assume ? ...”
how is this analogous to the universe? Or evolution? ( Or what exactly is this supposed to be analogies to? ) ? Neither involves us knowing that somebody put something there and then that something being rearranged in a way to indicate that another intelligence rearranged it so I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here.
“..Your logic reminds me of a MIT professor who gave a lecture on the moon. He argued about the improbability of a planet satallite with our moon's relative proportions and proximity. The earth's moon simply should not be. Then at the end he said that because of these anamolies the moon does not exist!
Saying the moon did not exist of course derived chuckles from the student audience. We know that in spite of its improbable characteristics, our moon simply DOES exist. ...”
how does this relate to anything in my post? Even improbable events must sometimes happen -so? So what? I never denied this.
“...Now. "incredible claims" call for " incredible evidence" ? This argument can be made ad infinitum. Then you can argue that incredible evidence needs more incredible evidence, and that incredible evidence requires even MORE incredible evidence. ...” ( all spellings corrected )
one CLEARLY does not logically apply the other. You have demonstrated yet again that you ( and other creationists here ) do not always know how to do a simple valid logical deduction ( this probably has something to do with why you are a theist and theists having a lower average non-verbal IQ ) . Let me clearly point this out for you:
To say “X calls for Y” does NOT logically imply “Y needs more Y”!
how do you go from “X calls for Y” to “Y needs more Y” ! ? -I challenge you to show how!!!
Does saying, for example, “people driving cars unsupervised calls for possession of car licences” logically implies “possession of car licences needs more possession of car licences” ?
Answer, no. It doesn't even make much sense. Thus my car example proves that the 'logic' you are using here is invalid.
It doesn't make any difference what you substitute for X and Y, your logic is invalid so your conclusion does not validly follow from your premise.
If you let X = “incredible claims" and Y = "incredible evidence" then you are STILL using the SAME 'invalid' logic as with my car example thus your conclusion STILL does not validly follow from your premise.
I do NOT claim nor believe nor implied that incredible evidence needs more incredible evidence.
I am ONLY claiming that incredible claims require incredible evidence.
If I make the incredible claim that I have been on every planet in the universe, would you just believe me without incredible evidence for this? ( or at the very least ask for an explanation of how that could even be logically possible given my short life span and the limited speed of light? ) If not, then you must agree with my principle that incredible claims require incredible evidence. How can you possibly disagree? Unless you would believe my claim ( if made ) without incredible evidence that I have been on every planet in the universe! ?
2 edits
Originally posted by humymisprint:
“...I understand what you are saying. But I don't consider that excuse as following the evidence whereever it may lead. ...”
what? We need an “excuse” to follow the evidence to wherever it leads?
Is that a misprint? If not:
What have you against being rational? Don't you like where the evidence points?
Why is it wrong to go wherever the evidence point without incredible evidence that I have been on every planet in the universe! ?
"...one CLEARLY does not logically apply the other. ..."
should have been:
"...one CLEARLY does not logically imply the other. ..."
2 edits
Originally posted by humy
“...I understand what you are saying. But I don't consider that excuse as following the evidence whereever it may lead. ...”
what? We need an “excuse” to follow the evidence to wherever it leads?
Is that a misprint? If not:
What have you against being rational? Don't you like where the evidence points?
Why is it wrong to go wherever the evidence point without incredible evidence that I have been on every planet in the universe! ?
what? We need an “excuse” to follow the evidence to wherever it leads? Is that a misprint? If not:
No misprint. You NEED an excuse to explain away the evidence of purpose and planning seen in nature. I don't expect you to agree. I expect you to exercise all the cleverness you can muster to act like you see no evidence of intelligence in ie, the molecular machinery of a single cell.
I expect you to continue lying to yourself until you believe your own lie.
What have you against being rational? Don't you like where the evidence points?
Very good loaded questions.
Did you stop beating your wife yet ?
When are you going to return that property you stole from your job?
See ? I can ask loaded questions too.
Why is it wrong to go wherever the evidence points? - I “admit” ( if that is the right word although I completely fail to see this as admitting to doing something wrong ) that my conclusions are evidence-based; so have I done something wrong merely by making my conclusions evidence based?
You started with a conclusion. You start with something like this:
"I know no other minds exist. So whatever detection of design could be seen in nature, it cannot be actually the result of intelligence."
[I said "something LIKE this ..."]
That is why you protested that "we know" that the chess game was humanly thought up. So as an Atheist you think you KNOW that no higher mind (certainly no God's) could have possibly designed anything.
You don't really know what you say you know.
You may prefer it.
You may want it so for deeply personal reasons.
You don't know that no other mind could have designed say the operation of a living cell.
You reason from your preference.
And you posture yourself here as if to impress people of your objectivity.
I don't expect you to do anything but try to show how clever you can be and continue to lie to yourself.
If so, then if I should not use evidence to draw conclusions about reality, what should I use instead? Blind faith? Or some other type of stupidity?
I don't know what "blind faith" is. The expression "blind faith" seems to be someting invented by those without certain experiences with faith. As outsiders trying to make sense of what they see, they came up with the phrase "blind faith".
Since I have been a Christian, I have not known what "blind faith" means. I know something about "faith". But that has some confirming support.
Maybe "blind faith" that no intelligent agent exists to have designed the molecular machinery in a living cell ... maybe that's your "blind faith".
“...What you are saying is that you will not follow the evidence of you a priori have decided there is no mind to that suspected identity. ...”
no, I am saying the exact opposite. Therefore there is no supernatural god and creationism is false for all the evidence points against creationism and there is no evidence for something supernatural.
As I said, I expect you to posture yourself as if you are objective.
The evidence surely does not point away from Intelligent Design. It will be a frosty day in hell before you convince me that the molecular machininery inside a living cell, for example, is an accident.
I think you are just making a fool out of yourself trying to deny it. Things like that do not happen without a plan, without some forethought, without some ability to "look ahead" intelligently to steer processes toward an intended outcome.
A supernatural god is a possibility. But Science really does not have to identify the mind or minds. Science can detect the intelligence and leave it to other disciplines to try to arrive at the identity of the minds that did this designing.
“...Say I leave a pile of coins in a room scattered all over a table, and lock all doors, and windows so that NO ONE can enter that room, and have it watched.
The next day I only enter into that room and see a change. The coins have been stacked up in piles - pennies together, nickels together, dimes together, quarters together, half dollars together, and silver dollars together, what should I assume ? ...”
how is this analogous to the universe? Or evolution? ( Or what exactly is this supposed to be analogies to? ) ? Neither involves us knowing that somebody put something there and then that something being rearranged in a way to indicate that another intelligence rearranged it so I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here.
Do you deny that the EVIDENCE would strongly indicate that knowledge of the deniminations of coins was utilyzed in the arrangement of the coins ?
You say that is not even in the possibility of things that could have occured ?
The analogy is that whether we like it or not, systems exist in the universe that obviate planning to arrive at an outcome the odds of which happening are astronomically adverse.
Now you can keep me here, talking and writing and talking and writing .. and then ponce on some little minute point to score. This kind of argument doesn't impress me.
I am not that impressed that you can ponce on some minute mistake about some amino acid or bacteria. I consider the larger picture.
I am not dazzled that you show that you know more about some tiny protien or can correct me on some little feature.
The larger picture of, say, the molecular machinery of the living cell, I think suggests that intelligent design cannot be abruptly ruled out. And scientists who persue that possibility surely are not wasting their time to do so.
The approval of legal courts doesn't effect this. The approval of some dubious "peer" review doesn't that much effect it if it is good science. And it certainly is not effected by folks like you touting how much more intelligent you are than everyone else.
“..Your logic reminds me of a MIT professor who gave a lecture on the moon. He argued about the improbability of a planet satallite with our moon's relative proportions and proximity. The earth's moon simply should not be. Then at the end he said that because of these anamolies the moon does not exist!
Saying the moon did not exist of course derived chuckles from the student audience. We know that in spite of its improbable characteristics, our moon simply DOES exist. ...”
how does this relate to anything in my post? Even improbable events must sometimes happen -so? So what? I never denied this.
The denial of the improbable.
Planning, design, is detectable. You are denying it when it is staring us in the face. At least the evidence is strong when you dogmatically think the evidence has to be non-existence. You won't even entertain the possibility of intelligent design.
So the analogy is your denying the possibility of ID is like denying that the moon exists. Strong denial either way.
“...Now. "incredible claims" call for " incredible evidence" ? This argument can be made ad infinitum. Then you can argue that incredible evidence needs more incredible evidence, and that incredible evidence requires even MORE incredible evidence. ...” ( all spellings corrected )
one CLEARLY does not logically apply the other. You have demonstrated yet again that you ( and other creationists here ) do not always know how to do a simple valid logical deduction ( this probably has something to do with why you are a theist and theists having a lower average non-verbal IQ ) . Let me clearly point this out for you:
To say “X calls for Y” does NOT logically imply “Y needs more Y”!
how do you go from “X calls for Y” to “Y needs more Y” ! ? -I challenge you to show how!!!
Does saying, for example, “people driving cars unsupervised calls for possession of car licences” logically implies “possession of car licences needs more possession of car licences” ?
Poor example because you were talking about "encredible claims."
No just any X is the issue. An X which you consider encredible.
Answer, no. It doesn't even make much sense. Thus my car example proves that the 'logic' you are using here is invalid.
Your argument was about encredible claims. You use a mundane example.
It doesn't make any difference what you substitute for X and Y, your logic is invalid so your conclusion does not validly follow from your premise.
If you let X = “incredible claims" and Y = "incredible evidence" then you are STILL using the SAME 'invalid' logic as with my car example thus your conclusion STILL does not validly follow from your premise.
I do NOT claim nor believe nor implied that incredible evidence needs more incredible evidence.
I am ONLY claiming that incredible claims require incredible evidence.
If I make the incredible claim that I have been on every planet in the universe, would you just believe me without incredible evidence for this? ( or at the very least ask for an explanation of how that could even be logically possible given my short life span and the limited speed of light? ) If not, then you must agree with my principle that incredible claims require incredible evidence. How can you possibly disagree? Unless you would believe my claim ( if made ) without incredible evidence that I have been on every planet in the universe! ?
I agree that I would want evidence to support your encredible claim.
And I also perceive that one could always continue to argue that something has not yet been proved - "You haven't proved it yet."
cont. below
4 edits
Suppose I regarded for some reason that you saying your father is such and such a person, is encredible, imposible. I guarantee you that whatever evidence you offer I could object to on at least some plausible error.
...
1.) Maybe he lied to you.
2.) Maybe the birth certificate was forged.
3.) Maybe you mother lied to your father.
4.) Maybe the doctors filled out papers wrong.
5.) Maybe the hospital lost records and replaced with fictional ones.
6.) Maybe the DNA test was faulty.
7.) Maybe the current level of DNA is in error.
8.) Maybe some other conspiracy.
You see, ad infinitum, I can argue that you haven't PROVED it yet that so and so is really your father.
In another post I'll comment on this further.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by jaywillAhem...
Suppose I regarded for some reason that you saying your father is such and such a person, is encredible, imposible. I guarantee you that whatever evidence you offer I could object to on at least some plausible error.
...
1.) Maybe he lied to you.
2.) Maybe the birth certificate was forged.
3.) Maybe you mother lied to your father.
4.) Maybe the ...[text shortened]... yet that so and so is really your father.
In another post I'll comment on this further.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Infinite_regression_of_skepticism
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Common_objections_to_atheism_and_counter-apologetics
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Burden_of_proof
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Beyond_a_reasonable_doubt
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou too. Go back and see if you can get Anthony Flew to return to being an atheist for precisely the reasons humy argues.
Ahem...
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Infinite_regression_of_skepticism
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Common_objections_to_atheism_and_counter-apologetics
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Burden_of_proof
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Beyond_a_reasonable_doubt
Bring your lost sheep back to the atheist fold
Now you push back by saying that I do the same with Bart Ehrman.
That's fair.
I could at least say Bart Erhman is trying to distance himself from some of the skeptics who sought to capitalize on him by putting words in his mouth that he didn't say:
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by jaywillWhat for?
You too. Go back and see if you can get [b] Anthony Flew to return to being an atheist for precisely the reasons humy argues.
Bring your lost sheep back to the atheist fold
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbyTwmaJArU
Now you push back by saying that I do the same with Bart Ehrman.
That's fair.
I could at least s ...[text shortened]... utting words in his mouth that he didn't say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SIhX4BWCPU[/b]
I was simply rebutting your nonsense argument you presented in the post I responded to.
As I have said before the number of people who believe in an idea has absolutely no baring on
the truth of that idea.
I don't care how many scientists you name who believe in a god.
Anthony Flew is wrong and is being irrational which I am sure has already been pointed out to him.
And I have not mentioned or even know who Bart Ehrman is...
So try responding to the concise put down of your argument about skepticism ad nauseum I
linked to rather than making up my position and attacking that.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI don't care how many scientists you can name that do not believe in God. They
What for?
I was simply rebutting your nonsense argument you presented in the post I responded to.
As I have said before the number of people who believe in an idea has absolutely no baring on
the truth of that idea.
I don't care how many scientists you name who believe in a god.
Anthony Flew is wrong and is being irrational which I am sur ...[text shortened]... about skepticism ad nauseum I
linked to rather than making up my position and attacking that.
are wrong and GOD is RIGHT. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsWell that might actually be a zinger if I was arguing that the fact that most scientists don't
I don't care how many scientists you can name that do not believe in God. They
are wrong and GOD is RIGHT. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏
believe in god proves that god doesn't exist.
However since I have never said anything of the sort, and that it is in fact jaywill [and other
theists like yourself] who are arguing that because some scientists believe in god then god
exists your post is really pretty dim because you're highlighting the flaws in your own arguments.
And being ridiculously smug about doing it.
5 edits
Originally posted by jaywillwhat? We need an “excuse” to follow the evidence to wherever it leads? Is that a misprint? If not: ( my comment )what? We need an “excuse” to follow the evidence to wherever it leads? Is that a misprint? If not:
No misprint. You [b]NEED an excuse to explain away the evidence of purpose and planning seen in nature. I don't expect you to agree. I expect you to exercise all the cleverness you can muster to act like you see no evidence of inte n't proved it yet." [/b]
cont. below[/b]
No misprint. You NEED an excuse to explain away the evidence of purpose and planning seen in nature ...”
there is no “ evidence of purpose and planning seen in nature “
“...You started with a conclusion. ...”
no, I start with the evidence.
“...You start with something like this:
"I know no other minds exist. ...” ...”
no; I know other minds DO exist. You are one of them.
“...So whatever detection of design could be seen in nature, it cannot be actually the result of intelligence." ...”
if design was detected in nature then I would believe in intelligent design. Therefore, that is not my premise for anything.
“...That is why you protested that "we know" that the chess game was humanly thought up ...”
no; we DO know that a chess computer was intelligently designed because there is EVIDENCE for this.
“...So as an Atheist you think you KNOW that no higher mind (certainly no God's) could have possibly designed anything. ...”
No; that is false: As a rational atheist I know that in the absence of evidence of a god designing anything as well as the absence of evidence of there BEING a god, it is rational for me to assume a very low probability of something specific in nature ( such as a human ) being designed by a god.
“...It will be a frosty day in hell before you convince me that the molecular machinery inside a living cell, for example, is an accident. … (spelling corrected )
that's right. That's because I don't believe it was an “accident” and therefore would not want to convince you of such an absurdity. Haven't you heard of “evolution”? The process of evolution is not an “accident” but an inevitable process under the only three right conditions ( which are, 1, the environment not being so harsh as to make life impossible, 2, there being life in that environment and 3, the environment that life being in changing at least occasionally thus stimulating new adaptations through natural selection ) .
The fact that there is molecular machinery inside a living cell is no “accident” but rather the inevitable outcome of the inevitable process under the only three right conditions for evolution.
“..Poor example because you were talking about "encredible claims."
No just any X is the issue. An X which you consider encredible. ...”
firstly, why to you insist on misspelling “incredible” as “encredible”? You have done this many times now and I find it annoying.
Secondly, prefixing X ( or Y for that matter ) with the word "incredible" makes no difference to your stupid illogic. Let me demonstrate this:
As you insist that the word “incredible” is relevant here ( which it isn't ) , your flawed 'logic' was then in the form
“incredible X calls for incredible Y” logically implies “ incredible Y needs more incredible Y”
HOW does one logically imply the other? That is just stupid claptrap. One CLEARLY does not logically follow from the other.
To prove this, one way is for me to show just ONE example of an application of that 'logic' where the conclusion can be false even if the premise is true ( although simple logic should have been sufficient for you to see this, I am forced to use a simple example instead for you clearly do not understand logic ) .
here is an example:
let X = “personal fitness” and Y = “personal exercise”.
Then applying your 'logic' we have:
“incredible personal fitness calls for incredible personal exercise logically implies incredible personal exercise needs more incredible personal exercise”
so, if the premise is correct i.e. if “incredible personal fitness calls for incredible personal exercise” is true then, according to the SAME flawed logic you used, “incredible personal exercise needs more incredible personal exercise” ( which, according to your logic, needs yet more incredible personal exercise and so on for infinitum ) is also true. Really? WHY would that follow?
Explain to us the logical contradiction of “incredible personal exercise calls for incredible personal exercise” ( this is the conclusion ) being false and “incredible personal fitness calls for incredible personal exercise” ( this is the premise ) being true....? -answer, you cannot. Therefore one does not logically imply the other.
Also, the premise only states that incredible personal fitness calls for incredible personal exercise; that says nothing about what “more” is needed for incredible personal exercise. If you deny this fact then explain HOW it says something about what “more” is needed for incredible personal exercise.....?
if you cannot explain that, then that example PROVES your 'logic' to be deductively invalid where you said:
“...Now. "incredible claims" call for " incredible evidence" ? This argument can be made ad infinitum. Then you can argue that incredible evidence needs more incredible evidence, and that incredible evidence requires even MORE incredible evidence. ...”
Originally posted by googlefudgeI was only responding to your statement to show you I have a better reason for
Well that might actually be a zinger if I was arguing that the fact that most scientists don't
believe in god proves that god doesn't exist.
However since I have never said anything of the sort, and that it is in fact jaywill [and other
theists like yourself] who are arguing that because some scientists believe in god then god
exists your post i ...[text shortened]... highlighting the flaws in your own arguments.
And being ridiculously smug about doing it.
believing the exact opposite of you. I have the Word of God in the Holy Bible
to back me up. You have only the speculations of uninspired fallible men.
HalleluYah !!!
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, you have the Bible. You do not know that you have the word of God. It might be. But it might also just be the uninspired writings of assorted iron age religious leaders, drawing on oral and cultural history, with far less understanding of the universe than we have today.
I was only responding to your statement to show you I have a better reason for
believing the exact opposite of you. I have the Word of God in the Holy Bible
to back me up. You have only the speculations of uninspired fallible men.
HalleluYah !!!
--- Penguin.
1 edit
Originally posted by humy
what? We need an “excuse” to follow the evidence to wherever it leads? Is that a misprint? If not: ( my comment )
No misprint. You NEED an excuse to explain away the evidence of purpose and planning seen in nature ...”
there is no “ evidence of purpose and planning seen in nature “
“...You started with a conclusion. ...”
no, I start with the that incredible evidence requires even MORE incredible evidence. ...”
no; we DO know that a chess computer was intelligently designed because there is EVIDENCE for this.
“...So as an Atheist you think you KNOW that no higher mind (certainly no God's) could have possibly designed anything. ...”
No; that is false: As a rational atheist I know that in the absence of evidence of a god designing anything as well as the absence of evidence of there BEING a god, it is rational for me to assume a very low probability of something specific in nature ( such as a human ) being designed by a god.
As a rational theist I know that you cannot insist on the absence of evidence for God designing anything. As a rational theist I know this is your atheistic bluster, wishful thinking, and your own for lack of better word "religion".
Please don't expect me to be impressed with this bluster of yours.
You took a step in the right direction by saying you DO believe that other minds. You submit me as your first example.
Well, the identity of such a mind or the lack thereof does not cause us to discount evidence of SOME mind being at work.
The criminologist uses his science of forensic analysis to determine if, for example, a death was an accident or a murder. The forensic examination of the evidence may point to a murder. Now they may or may not have or ever have the identity of the murderer. It doesn't cause them to discount the evidence of murder because of ignorance of the identity.
So we have in the criminal system some "Cold Cases". Perhaps they will find the identity latter. Perhaps they will never find out the identity. The science of forensics still points to intelligent criminal activity.
And you just have to get use to the some scientists not refusing to rule out intelligent design simply because they cannot through their research uncover who the designer may have been.
That may be a "Cold Case" as far as the scientific method is concerned. Or it may be something that falls in the realm of some other discipline.
I don't believe only the scientific method can yield truth. I believe the scientific method has its limits. Those limits do not cause me discount evidence of intelligence at work.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by jaywillThere is no such thing as a rational theist.
[quote] no; we DO know that a chess computer was intelligently designed because there is EVIDENCE for this.
“...So as an Atheist you think you KNOW that no higher mind (certainly no God's) could have possibly designed anything. ...”
No; that is false: As a rational atheist I know that in the absence of evidence of a god designing anything as well as ...[text shortened]... as its limits. Those limits do not cause me discount evidence of intelligence at work.
It is one of the very core principles of rationalism and skepticism that you don't believe in ANYTHING
without evidence that justifies that belief. You believe nothing based on faith.
Rationality and skepticism also sets standards for what constitutes evidence and how to get evidence
about how the world works (with scientific methodology).
There is presently NOTHING that meets the evidence standards that rationality and skepticism requires
for the existence of any god or gods.
Thus it is by definition irrational to be a theist.
Now you could I suppose be potentially rational about everything but your belief in the existence of a deity
or deities...
However you still can't claim to be a rational theist because theism is presently irrational by definition.
Thus far every argument and claim you are making has been refuted over a century ago.
You can in fact look up pretty much all your arguments on the Iron Chariots Wiki and see how they turn out
(hint... you lose all of them).
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Common_objections_to_atheism_and_counter-apologetics
You are not saying anything new that hasn't been argued for centuries.
Any atheist who has put any serious thought into their non-belief and has been arguing against theists for any
length of time has seen all of the arguments you are making many times over and all of those arguments you make
have been nut just rebutted but refuted. Usually hundreds of years ago. (some by the Greeks)