@athrock, LOL...the irony.....it's clearly been lost. Do you believe in god on something other than faith? Lets see that something? Do you believe in god because other people, perhaps smarter than yourself, believe? The arguments you've presented thusfar, even if we swallow them wholecloth (which would be silly to begin with), don't take us to the god conclusion, let alone The All Powerful Cathol. Do you believe in god because of those arguments?

(March 31, 2016 at 10:00 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: In both atlas and 3A's case, the phenomenon they happily accept without a shred of physical evidence is in every conceivable way far more outrageous and unlikely than the phenomenon which they reject in SPITE of evidence beyond any reasonable doubt.  

It's...amazing.  I've never seen two people who hold such an extraordinary belief based solely on faith (made even more extraordinary and unlikely considering they are putting forth not just an anonymous intelligent designer, but the MGC...good luck connecting all those dots with science and sound logic, guys) babble on and on for so damned long about science and odds.  Do you not hear yourselves?  Do you not understand how ridiculously convoluted your thinking is?

Why is it outrageous to say that biological systems may have been designed, when intelligence is the only known cause capable of explaining what we know about cells? We babble about science and odds because these are the most informative tools for determining if current models are sufficient to explain the formation of life. I could go through a calculation of the odds of a functionally significant protein forming by chance if you want. You can disagree with the philosophy behind it, but disagreeing with the math is not a good idea. Math is the only way to truly prove anything.

(March 25, 2016 at 9:41 pm)AJW333 Wrote:

(March 25, 2016 at 12:26 am)Stimbo Wrote: Which is why randomness isn't the only factor. You've had this explained to you nearly 10^18 times. I think you've demonstrated the worth of your science degree by now. You really should quit before you embarrass yourself further; hell, I think we're all embarrassed for you at this point.

From the Atheist in Chief Prof Richard Dawkins,

"All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics, albeit deplored in a special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all." http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm

According to him, the process of natural selection is completely random. The survival of any given organism may be benefited by certain mutations to the DNA but this is in no way responsible for improving the odds that the next mutation will be beneficial. You still have to have an absurd number of successful mutations to get anywhere.

Are you really stupid enough to believe that unplanned and completely random are the exact same thing?

(March 31, 2016 at 10:38 am)AAA Wrote: Why is it outrageous to say that biological systems may have been designed, when intelligence is the only known cause capable of explaining what we know about cells? We babble about science and odds because these are the most informative tools for determining if current models are sufficient to explain the formation of life. I could go through a calculation of the odds of a functionally significant protein forming by chance if you want. You can disagree with the philosophy behind it, but disagreeing with the math is not a good idea. Math is the only way to truly prove anything.

It's not outrageous, it's just stupid. In lights of what we learned about the universe, the world and ourselves over the last few centuries.

I think, I already said it, but your obviously the posterboy caveman not understanding the sun and the moon and calling them gods. Worse than that, since now we have the tools to explain a lot of things in nature. Not all of them, but that doesn't mean we have to fill the gaps with god. It's just the same old answer. We don't know - as of yet. But the pile of evidence against your particular scripted god versus him being a reality, is like the difference between the Mount Everest and an Ant heap.

(March 31, 2016 at 10:43 am)abaris Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 10:38 am)AAA Wrote: Why is it outrageous to say that biological systems may have been designed, when intelligence is the only known cause capable of explaining what we know about cells? We babble about science and odds because these are the most informative tools for determining if current models are sufficient to explain the formation of life. I could go through a calculation of the odds of a functionally significant protein forming by chance if you want. You can disagree with the philosophy behind it, but disagreeing with the math is not a good idea. Math is the only way to truly prove anything.

It's not outrageous, it's just stupid. In lights of what we learned about the universe, the world and ourselves over the last few centuries.

I think, I already said it, but your obviously the posterboy caveman not understanding the sun and the moon and calling them gods. Worse than that, since now we have the tools to explain a lot of things in nature. Not all of them, but that doesn't mean we have to fill the gaps with god. It's just the same old answer. We don't know - as of yet. But the pile of evidence against your particular scripted god versus him being a reality, is like the difference between the Mount Everest and an Ant heap.

There is no mountain of evidence like you guys keep repeating. And in light of what we have learned about biology and cosmology, I think that there are a lot of scientists who think that there is plenty of evidence of a designer. There are also obviously a lot who don't think that there is a designer. Give me part of the mountain of evidence against a designer being a reality. And I am perfectly happy having the null hypothesis be that the cell was designed until we find a way to demonstrate the likelihood of any alternative hypothesis.

(March 31, 2016 at 10:51 am)AAA Wrote: I think that there are a lot of scientists who think that there is plenty of evidence of a designer.

Such as? Or is think in that context just a synonyme for talking out of your ass?

(March 31, 2016 at 10:08 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 9:53 am)athrock Wrote: I don't see why complexity cannot emerge or evolve naturally, but the general idea of Intelligent Design (I think) is that the Designer was not designed by anyone or thing nor did it emerge naturally.

It's reasonable to say that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. For example, a cornbread muffin does not simply exist on its own or bring itself into existence. The cause of its existence is a baker. This principle of causation holds regardless of how big or small the thing in question may be – whether it is a muffin, a house, a planet or the entire universe. And if the universe began to exist, and scientists seem to agree that it did, then the universe had a cause.

Further, if something exists, there must also exist that which is necessary for that thing to exist. So, if the universe – that is, the sum of all physical matter, space, and time – exists, there must also exist whatever is necessary for the universe to exist. But, that which is necessary cannot be part of the universe, exist within it or be bounded by space and time because nothing that is within the universe can bring itself into existence. In other words, whatever is necessary for the universe to exist must be outside the universe and transcend both space and time. So, if the universe began to exist, it must have had a cause which is outside the universe itself and which transcends both space and time.

Going further still, the apparent fine-tuning of the universe which was necessary for the existence of life suggests the existence of an intelligent designer.

This intelligent designer which exists outside the universe and beyond space and time is what we call "God".

Can you please provide evidence that everything which exists needs a cause?  You don't get to go any further with your argument until you do that.  Those are an awful lot of bald assertions about the nature of the universe and the matter contained within it being put forth by someone who I am pretty sure is neither a physicist nor a cosmologist.  You better back them up.  

And btw...outside of space and time means outside of existence...which means not in existence...which means...God isn't fucking real.  [emoji12]

Can you provide any evidence of things simply popping into existence from nothing? You don't to go any further with your argument until you do that.

Are YOU a physicist or a cosmologist?

And btw..."outside of space and time" means "outside of space and time"....not "outside of existence". Numbers exist outside of space and time...they don't take up space and they are unaffected by time...which means that your <cough> "logic" is not real.

(March 31, 2016 at 10:09 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 9:53 am)athrock Wrote: This intelligent designer which exists outside the universe and beyond space and time is what we call "God".

Rather than explaining why the "intelligent designer" proposition is a failure...because that clearly doesn't work for you....I'll simply ask why you call this extra dimensional tinkerer "god"?  Additionally, who is "we"?  Quite the leap....not sure why you went through the trouble of attempting to argue unrelated points, when you were going to conclude god by fiat.

What do you know about this "god" thing, and how did you come to know it?

"God" is simply a word which is used to name that which has certain properties and characteristics, etc. Atheists don't believe that God exists, but they find the word useful for discussion purposes. We might agree the unicorns and leprechauns don't exist, but the words are useful when we share a common, general understanding of what those things are. Interestingly, I find that much misunderstanding among theists and non-theists occurs when the two sides have vastly different views of who or what God is. Atheists sometimes see God in anthropomorphic terms whereas monotheists, like Jews, Christians and Muslims, do not. I myself would not believe in the lesser being that many atheists envision when they think of "god".


If you prefer a different word, use that instead. However, whatever name you choose, the properties and characteristics should remain the same.

"We" would be those who believe that "God" exists. 

Did I conclude God by fiat? Or did I follow a chain of logic to arrive at the conclusion that it is more reasonable than not to believe in the existence of a Designer outside of space and time?

(March 31, 2016 at 10:10 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 9:53 am)athrock Wrote: I don't see why complexity cannot emerge or evolve naturally, but the general idea of Intelligent Design (I think) is that the Designer was not designed by anyone or thing nor did it emerge naturally.

It's reasonable to say that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. For example, a cornbread muffin does not simply exist on its own or bring itself into existence. The cause of its existence is a baker. This principle of causation holds regardless of how big or small the thing in question may be – whether it is a muffin, a house, a planet or the entire universe. And if the universe began to exist, and scientists seem to agree that it did, then the universe had a cause.

This is conflating creation ex materia with creation ex nihilo.  The muffin is created ex materia.  The universe is posited to have been created ex nihilo.  The two are not equivalent cases.

You are right, Jorm. But does this muffin analogy actually damage the overall argument? Or is it generally useful? 

If you were walking alone in the woods and you came upon black metal box with hinges and a padlock in the middle of the trail, would your first thought be like that of Bertrand Russell, "Well, locked black boxes like this just are, and that's all there is to it"? Or would you assume implicitly that someone made the box, locked it, and placed it in the path?

And if the box can be presumed to have a maker, why not something larger...like a house, for instance? Or an aircraft carrier? Or a planet or even the universe itself? Does the size of the thing in question really change our willingness to conceive of its maker?

(March 31, 2016 at 10:10 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 9:53 am)athrock Wrote: Further, if something exists, there must also exist that which is necessary for that thing to exist. So, if the universe – that is, the sum of all physical matter, space, and time – exists, there must also exist whatever is necessary for the universe to exist. But, that which is necessary cannot be part of the universe, exist within it or be bounded by space and time because nothing that is within the universe can bring itself into existence. In other words, whatever is necessary for the universe to exist must be outside the universe and transcend both space and time. So, if the universe began to exist, it must have had a cause which is outside the universe itself and which transcends both space and time.

This is an abduction from the basic result and thus requires verification, which you obviously can't provide.  We have no way of inferring the accuracy of your claims here.  Thus the reasoning is pure conjecture.

And how reasonable is that conjecturing, Jorm? Pretty good? Yes.  

You're dancing around the issue: if something (real, physical, material) exists, then everything that is necessary for its existence must also exist.

If you think otherwise, demonstrate an example.

(March 31, 2016 at 10:10 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 9:53 am)athrock Wrote: Going further still, the apparent fine-tuning of the universe which was necessary for the existence of life suggests the existence of an intelligent designer.

Design is something either evolved brains or created souls do.  If you insist that it was souls, then you're begging the question of the existence of the theist worldview.  If evolved brains, then the analogy from human design is flawed because God is not a similar designer and thus constitutes an unrelated phenomenon.  Since design, even if true, may point to a naturalistic designer, you have made no headway on demonstrating a supernatural God.

I'm not arguing for "created souls"; I'm arguing for an uncreated, necessary, Intelligent Designer who must have existed outside of space before they were created.

(March 31, 2016 at 10:23 am)Rhythm Wrote: @athrock, LOL...the irony.....it's clearly been lost.  Do you believe in god on something other than faith?  Lets see that something?  Do you believe in god because other people, perhaps smarter than yourself, believe?  The arguments you've presented thusfar, even if we swallow them wholecloth (which would be silly to begin with), don't take us to the god conclusion, let alone The All Powerful Cathol.  Do you believe in god because of those arguments?

I would not expect anyone to "swallow them wholecloth"; I would expect people to consider them carefully.

Do you believe the arguments themselves to be flawed? If so, please demonstrate.

Otherwise, you must conclude that the arguments are reasonable and thus that faith in God is REASONABLE. And please note that the arguments do not PROVE the existence of God, but they do illustrate that faith is NOT unreasonable for the thinking person.

For some believers, faith is based on their own experience of God with little underlying foundation as to WHY or HOW it can be demonstrated that God exists. And while that's okay, clearly a "faith alone" position is not as strong as a "faith + reason" perspective. I venture that quite a few atheists in this forum might have remained believers or at least been more open to the idea of believing if they had been given better answers to their "why" and "how" questions when they were younger or facing crisis moments.

That's why apologetics AND catechetics are both necessary.