Any rational person including most atheists think we're either the result of plan and design by a personal agent or were the unintended result of some naturalistic process that didn't plan or intend us to exist. I don't think even you believe otherwise.
There are theorhetical options that even you don't believe are true.
That's rich an atheist calling me rude. Lets see if we can settle this once and for all. Do you believe (not do you know of theories) that our existence and that of the universe is the result of or exists in some other fashion that is neither the result of plan and design or some unguided naturalistic process that unintentionally resulted in our existence?
The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that the universe in its current form began to exist and that even time began to exist when the universe emerged. Thats where the scientific consensus that you embrace when it seems to support your contention leads.
They will concede they're not certain how the universe came about or how life came about but they are extremely confident that some naturalistic unguided mindless method unintentionally caused the universe and life to exist and eventually this will be confirmed. I suspect that is what you actually believe but you prefer to pettifog the issue.
Then why have you spent post after post denying, obfuscating and pettifogging the issue when in fact all along you subscribe to exactly what I have said page after page? If you are confident as you say, why did I have to goad you over and over to finally make you man up and say what you really believe? I wrote earlier from an article on genuine inquiry vs fake or sham inquiry.
Neither sham nor fake inquiry is really inquiry; but we need to get beyond this tautology to understand what is wrong with sham and fake reasoning. The sham inquirer tries to make a case for the truth of a proposition his commitment to which is already evidence- and argument-proof. The fake inquirer tries to make a case for some proposition advancing which he thinks will enhance his own reputation, but to the truth-value of which he is indifferent. (Such indifference is, as Harry Frankfurt once shrewdly observed, the characteristic attitude of the bullshitter.)3 Both the sham and the fake inquirer, but especially the sham, are motivated to avoid examining any apparently contrary evidence or argument too closely, to play down its importance or impugn its relevance, to contort themselves explaining it away. And, since people often mistake the impressively obscure for the profound, both, but especially the fake reasoner, are motivated to obfuscate.
But now you say (not that you have a shred of credibility left) that you have a great deal of confidence 'that some naturalistic unguided mindless method unintentionally caused the universe and life to exist'. If you are so confident why have you spent endless time and posts denying the very thing you're confident of? Do you think if we we're arguing our respective case before a group of impartial people who are neither comitted atheists or theists that you haven't just shot yourself in the foot and destroyed any chance of being credible? Have you given such an impartial crowd any reason to think your sincere in your beliefs? Its obvious now you're willing to spew any nonsense in favor of your contention whether you believe it or not.
Thats because scientists are committed to naturalistic explanations. In fact they define science as the search for naturalistic explanations. And its not true that they haven't discovered facts that support theism. For a period of time scientists believed the universe always existed and stretched out infinitely in all directions but much to their chagrin they discovered it did begin to exist in at least its present form about 13.7 billion years ago and that even time began to exist. The consensus among scientists is that the universe came into existence from a phenomenon known as a singularity, something that is beyond the laws of physics we are somewhat familiar with. Do you think that scientific theory supports the belief its 'natural causes' all the way down? If 'natural' is defined as anything that could possibly happen then there is no distinction between natural and supernatural (which in fact there isn't). It was also an atheist scientist Martin Ree's who I used as a source to support the fine tuning contention. I didn't make this stuff up, I didn't research it, they did.
Why should we believe anything you say? You think you have a shred of credibility left? Its fortunate for you this is an atheist forum if this were a debating forum you'd have your head handed to you. You only have confidence in science when it tells you what you want to hear. If you were confident in science and the belief we owe our existence to natural causes that didn't plan or intend our existence why have you spent page after page denying exactly what you claim to have confidence in. You have been acting more like your embarrassed and ashamed of what you believe. You should have your atheist card pulled.
Quote:That's as may be, but I've already demonstrated that no matter how many people believe in one or the other, there's more than two options. The fact that you continue arguing from the position that this is a binary choice is frankly breathtakingly ignorant.
There are theorhetical options that even you don't believe are true.
That's rich an atheist calling me rude. Lets see if we can settle this once and for all. Do you believe (not do you know of theories) that our existence and that of the universe is the result of or exists in some other fashion that is neither the result of plan and design or some unguided naturalistic process that unintentionally resulted in our existence?
Quote:Like I said, I don't know. I think that the evidence in favor of a non-created universe is stronger than the reverse, but I'm open to the possibility that either idea could come through with stronger proof and tip those scales. After reading through all your evidence so far, I still think that; nothing you've said has been anywhere near strong enough to alter my views.
The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that the universe in its current form began to exist and that even time began to exist when the universe emerged. Thats where the scientific consensus that you embrace when it seems to support your contention leads.
They will concede they're not certain how the universe came about or how life came about but they are extremely confident that some naturalistic unguided mindless method unintentionally caused the universe and life to exist and eventually this will be confirmed. I suspect that is what you actually believe but you prefer to pettifog the issue.
Quote:Do you happen to know why we're extremely confident of that? Because that's where the evidence leads.
Then why have you spent post after post denying, obfuscating and pettifogging the issue when in fact all along you subscribe to exactly what I have said page after page? If you are confident as you say, why did I have to goad you over and over to finally make you man up and say what you really believe? I wrote earlier from an article on genuine inquiry vs fake or sham inquiry.
Neither sham nor fake inquiry is really inquiry; but we need to get beyond this tautology to understand what is wrong with sham and fake reasoning. The sham inquirer tries to make a case for the truth of a proposition his commitment to which is already evidence- and argument-proof. The fake inquirer tries to make a case for some proposition advancing which he thinks will enhance his own reputation, but to the truth-value of which he is indifferent. (Such indifference is, as Harry Frankfurt once shrewdly observed, the characteristic attitude of the bullshitter.)3 Both the sham and the fake inquirer, but especially the sham, are motivated to avoid examining any apparently contrary evidence or argument too closely, to play down its importance or impugn its relevance, to contort themselves explaining it away. And, since people often mistake the impressively obscure for the profound, both, but especially the fake reasoner, are motivated to obfuscate.
But now you say (not that you have a shred of credibility left) that you have a great deal of confidence 'that some naturalistic unguided mindless method unintentionally caused the universe and life to exist'. If you are so confident why have you spent endless time and posts denying the very thing you're confident of? Do you think if we we're arguing our respective case before a group of impartial people who are neither comitted atheists or theists that you haven't just shot yourself in the foot and destroyed any chance of being credible? Have you given such an impartial crowd any reason to think your sincere in your beliefs? Its obvious now you're willing to spew any nonsense in favor of your contention whether you believe it or not.
Quote:The people who are actually researching this, using mathematics and science and tools so far out of my range of goddamn experience as to genuinely leave me in awe of their skills? Those people aren't finding evidence for a creator god. Every day they're discovering more things about the universe, getting us closer and closer to the next big discovery, and for every mystery they solve, everything they do discover that someone like you has claimed is the work of one god or another, do you know what the common factor is? When they find the answer, the real one, no god was involved.
Thats because scientists are committed to naturalistic explanations. In fact they define science as the search for naturalistic explanations. And its not true that they haven't discovered facts that support theism. For a period of time scientists believed the universe always existed and stretched out infinitely in all directions but much to their chagrin they discovered it did begin to exist in at least its present form about 13.7 billion years ago and that even time began to exist. The consensus among scientists is that the universe came into existence from a phenomenon known as a singularity, something that is beyond the laws of physics we are somewhat familiar with. Do you think that scientific theory supports the belief its 'natural causes' all the way down? If 'natural' is defined as anything that could possibly happen then there is no distinction between natural and supernatural (which in fact there isn't). It was also an atheist scientist Martin Ree's who I used as a source to support the fine tuning contention. I didn't make this stuff up, I didn't research it, they did.
Quote:That's why we're confident in what science tells us, and consequently, why the opinions of a single forum goer who presupposes the existence of a god in the majority of his "evidence" isn't really impressing us. Can you really blame us for taking the word of real scientists over you, Drew?
Why should we believe anything you say? You think you have a shred of credibility left? Its fortunate for you this is an atheist forum if this were a debating forum you'd have your head handed to you. You only have confidence in science when it tells you what you want to hear. If you were confident in science and the belief we owe our existence to natural causes that didn't plan or intend our existence why have you spent page after page denying exactly what you claim to have confidence in. You have been acting more like your embarrassed and ashamed of what you believe. You should have your atheist card pulled.
