(March 31, 2016 at 11:22 am)athrock Wrote:

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

You're all over the map with your argument. This black box analogy has nothing to do with the Kalam style argument you were making. And since I wasn't complaining of a composition fallacy, your concerns about the size of the object are unrelated to the complaint given. The fallacy in the Kalam argument noted is equivocation, and none of what you've written addresses that.

(March 31, 2016 at 11:22 am)athrock Wrote:

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

Without some form of verification, it's as useless as conjecturing that something can come from nothing, which is an equally likely alternative. (Which is to say the likelihood is unknown.)

(March 31, 2016 at 11:22 am)athrock Wrote: 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.

It's funny how you want verification of an alternative hypothesis, yet require none for your own. That's special pleading. When you can provide independent attestation to your abduction, then you can demand that I do likewise.

(March 31, 2016 at 11:22 am)athrock Wrote:

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

You're arguing for a supernatural basis of design, namely that the human designer is a spirit, and thus not subject to the constraints of evolution. That would make the parallel between human design and God achieved design a suitable analogy. Without that, you've got a dissimilarity in your analogy between the thing being analogized and the analogizee. That makes your design argument a false analogy. And as noted, your argument for why an intelligent designer who existed outside of time and space is doubly flawed in that the argument for a cause rests on an equivocation, and the nature of the cause rests on an unsupported abduction.

(March 31, 2016 at 12:02 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 11:22 am)athrock Wrote: 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?

You're all over the map with your argument.  This black box analogy has nothing to do with the Kalam style argument you were making.  And since I wasn't complaining of a composition fallacy, your concerns about the size of the object are unrelated to the complaint given.  The fallacy in the Kalam argument noted is equivocation, and none of what you've written addresses that.

Jorm, I do not know your education or credentials. I have none that are relevant. However, I'm very confident that the numerous Christian philosophers who DO employ the Kalam Argument have sterling credentials, and they're not backing away from using the Kalam because of anyone's charge of "equivocation".

So, no, I'm not cowed in the least by your comments here. However, I'm in a good mood today, so if you care to provide a link to the website which you think does a reasonable job debunking ( ) the Kalam, I will give it a look.

See? I'm willing to learn.  

(March 31, 2016 at 12:02 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 11:22 am)athrock Wrote: And how reasonable is that conjecturing, Jorm? Pretty good? Yes.  

Without some form of verification, it's as useless as conjecturing that something can come from nothing, which is an equally likely alternative.   (Which is to say the likelihood is unknown.)

We live in the real world, Jorm. Things don't just pop into existence from nothing. If you think otherwise, please support your views with evidence.

(March 31, 2016 at 12:02 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 11:22 am)athrock Wrote: 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.

It's funny how you want verification of an alternative hypothesis, yet require none for your own.  That's special pleading.  When you can provide independent attestation to your abduction, then you can demand that I do likewise.

So, IOW, you have squat.  

(March 31, 2016 at 12:02 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 11:22 am)athrock Wrote: 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.

You're arguing for a supernatural basis of design, namely that the human designer is a spirit, and thus not subject to the constraints of evolution.  

Yep. You're quick, Jorm...I've always like that about you.  

I would say, however, that God could create the laws of physics, gravity, evolution, what have you...and live by them or within their constraints. And He could also intervene from time to time by oh, gee...walking on water or raising the dead or ensouling a non-human species with a human soul for the first time ever (think "Adam" here).

(March 31, 2016 at 12:02 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: That would make the parallel between human design and God achieved design a suitable analogy.  Without that, you've got a dissimilarity in your analogy between the thing being analogized and the analogizee.  That makes your design argument a false analogy.  And as noted, your argument for why an intelligent designer who existed outside of time and space is doubly flawed in that the argument for a cause rests on an equivocation, and the nature of the cause rests on an unsupported abduction.

Wow. That's a lot of fancy words, Jorm. To be honest, I'm not sure I can ever untangle them.

So, I'll just stick to plainer language: If there was a point at which space and time did not exist and if they could not create themselves from nothing, then that which DID create them must have pre-existed them both.

Now, if you wish to specify EXACTLY what the equivocation is, I might be able to get my head around that. No promises, though.  

(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.

Doesn't matter what scientists think or believe, only what they can demonstrate to be true. Scientists have to show their work just like everyone else.

(March 31, 2016 at 11:22 am)athrock Wrote: 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?

So, there's two basic problems with your argument here: one is an issue of false equivalence, and the other is a factual error.

To begin with the false equivalence, your discovery in the woods doesn't really match up with what you're seeking to make a comparison with, does it? I don't know whether you did this intentionally or not, but you selected an item that we already have evidence for its design, which we do not have for the universe. If you were to find a locked black box in the woods, you're already equipped with a vast swathe of data about how locks and boxes come to exist, and for what reason that is, but when you're talking about the universe, none of that is true and, in fact, we only have a single universe to examine, and it had already been around for a long ass time before we ever showed up to do so. You don't have the requisite information necessary to make the same assumption with the universe that you might with the locked box.

Now, there is a valid form of your analogy, we just need to tweak a variable: if you were walking alone in the woods and you came across an object, previously unknown to you, of which you only know of this single example in front of you, that you are only able to examine the smallest fraction of it, and are unable to ascertain what purpose it might have, or even if it does have a purpose... would you assume design? There's a conversation to be had there about how we even recognize design, but the fact is, that conversation needs to be had, because we're on far, far shakier ground talking about the universe than we are about locked boxes.

The factual error is simpler to explain, which is that you're unjustified in the assumption that universes even need a cause in the temporal sense we understand. Time and space are properties of the universe, and what data we have been able to ascertain about the big bang and points beyond seem to suggest that the physical constants within our universe stop applying as we understand them at the point of the big bang: causation stops mattering, for example, because you've reached the point at which our notion of time began, and "before time" is nonsensical as a concept. Cause and effect necessarily require linear time in which to occur, which did not exist prior to the Planck time, so when you say the universe requires a cause, the simple fact is that you've got no reason for saying that at all.

(March 31, 2016 at 1:00 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(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.

Doesn't matter what scientists think or believe, only what they can demonstrate to be true. Scientists have to show their work just like everyone else.

Good, I agree

(March 31, 2016 at 10:56 am)abaris Wrote:

(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?

You don't regard intelligent design proponents as scientists even if they are researching scientifically significant questions? Or do you just want me to list some names?

(March 31, 2016 at 10:56 am)athrock Wrote:

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

Yes, you are right! Numbers are models used to describe or model something. Just like God is an abstract concept used to describe something...that doesn't exist. [emoji41]

(March 31, 2016 at 1:18 pm)AAA Wrote: You don't regard intelligent design proponents as scientists even if they are researching scientifically significant questions? Or do you just want me to list some names?

Come up with people holding degrees in relevant fields. Such as biology, biochemistry, to name only a few. Dentists, MDs or theologians certainly don't count. And remember, you talked about lots. One certainly isn't lots.

(March 31, 2016 at 10:20 am)athrock Wrote:

(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? [emphasis added]

Is that true, Lady? 

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics...and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." 

- Fred Hoyle, Astrophysicist and Cosmologist, Cambridge

"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all...it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming."

- Paul Davies, Physicist, Recipient of the Templeton Prize, the Kelvin Medal from the UK Institute of Physics, and the Michael Faraday Prize

"Wherever physicists look, they see examples of fine tuning."

- Sir Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal of Great Britain, Fellow of Trinity College, Emeritus Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics, Cambridge

"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

- Stephen Hawking 

So, you can mock Atlas and AAA if you like, but apparently, they are in good company when they promote the Intelligent Design theory.

In light of this, perhaps you should take a look at how ridiculously convoluted your own thinking is. 

Lol, congratulations on your MASSIVE appeal to authority! So because there exist scientists out there who believe in God, therefor God? You're going to have to do better than that.

(March 31, 2016 at 1:37 pm)abaris Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 1:18 pm)AAA Wrote: You don't regard intelligent design proponents as scientists even if they are researching scientifically significant questions? Or do you just want me to list some names?

Come up with people holding degrees in relevant fields. Such as biology, biochemistry, to name only a few. Dentists, MDs or theologians certainly don't count.

And neither do engineers, of which there always seem to be a large number on any list of "scientists" who see purposeful design in the world.