(October 22, 2020 at 9:38 am)Klorophyll Wrote:

(October 22, 2020 at 9:34 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: A deeper understanding of why we do that is one of the benefits of living in the 21st century over the 7th.  We had it backwards.  Things aren't like us - we're like things.

Also, things don't create themselves.

“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”

Carl Sagan, Cosmos.

(October 22, 2020 at 7:22 am)Klorophyll Wrote:

(October 22, 2020 at 3:31 am)Sal Wrote: Eskimo: If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to Hell?
Priest: No, not if you did not know.
Eskimo: Then why did you tell me?

Alter the relevant nouns, and the message remains the same.

To know about God and religion does generally give one a meaning to his life. A book I read recently, "The Denial of Death" summarizes the entire human civilization as one desperate attempt to construct a defense mechanism against our mortality. After presenting what the most significant psychologists offered as defense mechanisms, he argues that losing religion leaves humanity with obvious illusions to find meaning into. Science too doesn't serve as an immortality project, it doesn't give agreeable, absolute meaning to life. Besides, aside from the genius minority who succeeds at becoming a star in some specific research topic and immortalize their name, the rest of people can't really derive some genuine, long lasting satisfaction or sense of immortality from doing science.

(October 22, 2020 at 7:03 am)Nomad Wrote: Teleological arguments aren't evidence they're claims.  And they're claims made in the absence of evidence at that.

Oh and the appeanace of design doesn't and can't prove god, because it isn't evidence of design.  Plenty of random sequences can be made to look like patterns, especially if you cut away the bits that are more obviously random.

Well first of all, the evidence supporting these arguments is the very appearance of design around us. If appearance of design isn't evidence of design, then nothing can possibly be evidence of design. My computer appears to be designed, but I can't reach, by some formal syllogism, the conclusion that it is designed. I still know that design is the best explanation of what I have in front of my eyes. The same goes for the universe, we already unraveled a great deal of sophistication regarding the laws of the universe. How everything just fits together perfectly, to serve a specific purpose, like holding the matter together or keeping some mass in some specific orbit. If this doesn't point to a lawgiver, then nothing can possibly lead you to a lawgiver.

If one asks to actually "see" the lawgiver, then it's not going to be of much help, even if his wishes come true. As he would still have a way out by claiming he was bewitched or his senses are deluded. You can only follow the best explanation for the appearances that reach your senses, asking for more is downright stupid.

Appearance of design is not evidence of design. A random pattern which takes on a simulcrum of order doesn't make it an ordered pattern.

Anyway, one really has to ignore the evidence to suggest that there is an appearance of design in reality. Thake the human body, there are many redundancies, flaws, obsolescences and other items in every human that no actual designer would ever countenance, no matter how incometent. Like who would make it so that you can easily asphyxiate yourself while eating dinner. Nobody would think that haing your breathing tube and eating tube be the same tube is a good idea, yet that is how humans are "designed". We can look at lots of other problems like the appendix or junk DNA and see nany evidences for the absence of design, but in reality find no evidence for it.

Design is not an explanation for the universe and anybody who insists that it is are not looking at reality ir even any approximation of it. Take your iron-age paedophiliac musings and shove them where the sun doesn't shine, it'll do you the world of good.

(October 22, 2020 at 9:29 am)Klorophyll Wrote: The appearance of design makes the existence of a designer more likely than not. Our increasing awareness of how complex life and nature increases this likelihood.

Sure, run with that.  

Quote:Yes, they are the very definition of the label kafir.

Tell me how the terrorist nuts got it wrong, then....again?

Quote:And this super abled version of ourselves still needs its contingent existence accounted for. And once again, you're facing the problem of infinite regress. We discussed the latter before in some thread and I presented a case for why such a regress is impossible.

Well, not really - since it doesn't exist.  Our own existence satisfies the contingencies of our own misapprehensions.  

However, since you're trying to steer this toward some other doomed batshit argument, I'll bite.  If positing your silly god leads to infinite regress, and infinite regress is impossible, then this would indicate that your god assertion is trash. A person arguing for god and referencing this finds themselves in a situation entirely like your earlier brush in with biology and improbability.

Rakes. Everywhere.

(October 22, 2020 at 9:38 am)Klorophyll Wrote: Also, things don't create themselves.

Sure, run with that.

(October 22, 2020 at 9:39 am)Sal Wrote:

(October 22, 2020 at 9:38 am)Klorophyll Wrote: Also, things don't create themselves.

“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”

Carl Sagan, Cosmos.

Okay. Proceed to invent the universe.

(October 22, 2020 at 9:40 am)Nomad Wrote: Appearance of design is not evidence of design.  A random pattern which takes on a simulcrum of order doesn't make it an ordered pattern.

Design doesn't exactly mean the existence of a pattern.

(October 22, 2020 at 9:40 am)Nomad Wrote: Anyway, one really has to ignore the evidence to suggest that there is an appearance of design in reality.  Thake the human body, there are many redundancies, flaws, obsolescences and other items in every human that no actual designer would ever countenance, no matter how incometent.  Like who would make it so that you can easily asphyxiate yourself while eating dinner.  Nobody would think that haing your breathing tube and eating tube be the same tube is a good idea, yet that is how humans are "designed".  We can look at lots of other problems like the appendix or junk DNA and see nany evidences for the absence of design, but in reality find no evidence for it.

Some of these so called redundancies or flaws turned out to have a useful biological role. Take the appendix, for example:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...162333.htm

(October 22, 2020 at 9:40 am)Nomad Wrote: Design is not an explanation for the universe and anybody who insists that it is are not looking at reality ir even any approximation of it.  Take your iron-age paedophiliac musings and shove them where the sun doesn't shine, it'll do you the world of good.

Why not ? Isn't the sunsine and diversity of life a part of reality ?

(October 22, 2020 at 9:46 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Tell me how the terrorist nuts got it wrong, then....again?

Terrorist nuts consider Eskimos, for example, also kafirs.

(October 22, 2020 at 9:46 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Well, not really - since it doesn't exist.  Our own existence satisfies the contingencies of our own misapprehensions. 

Sure, run with that

(October 22, 2020 at 9:46 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: However, since you're trying to steer this toward some other doomed batshit argument, I'll bite.  If positing your silly god leads to infinite regress, and infinite regress is impossible, then this would indicate that your god assertion is trash.  A person arguing for god and referencing this finds themselves in a situation entirely like your earlier brush in with biology and improbability. 

If infinite regress is impossible. You have a first cause preceeding these so called super abled versions of ourselves. I don't see a problem with this argument, do you ?

(October 22, 2020 at 10:04 am)Klorophyll Wrote: Terrorist nuts consider Eskimos, for example, also kafirs.

It's not the size of the group that's at issue, remember?  They include eskimos and you don't - but it is your shared reference to a set of common beliefs that informs their categorization in the first place.  

The objection to the categorization of human beings as kafir is not that you or anyone get some portion of the contents wrong.  That there are too many or too few members of the kafir set.  

Quote:Sure, run with that

Well, yes, ofc.  If someone asks me to explain the existence of some delusion that a person holds..I'm going to point to a person capable of holding a delusion.  Is there something strange in this that you'd like to object to?

Explaining the existence of a belief in a man in the sky hammering out stars is as simple as pointing to people who hold this belief.  There needs be no other reason for this belief to exist.  It does not have to refer in any way to a world exterior to a human mind.

Quote:If infinite regress is impossible. You have a first cause preceeding these so called super abled versions of ourselves. I don't see a problem with this argument, do you ?

Well, there we go.  Infinite regress is impossible.  Positing your super abled god necessitates another even more super abled thing to create it, and a hyper abled thing to create that, so on and so forth ad infinitum.

(October 22, 2020 at 10:13 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It's not the size of the group that's at issue, remember?  They include eskimos and you don't - but it is your shared reference to a set of common beliefs that informs their categorization in the first place.  

And I already explained how these categorizations are not up to us, remember? If a god out there truly makes rejecting compelling evidence gravely immoral, then rejecting compelling evidence is gravely immoral. Case closed. End of the story.
Muslims don't have some feud with kafirs. They just follow handed down rules.

(October 22, 2020 at 10:13 am)The Grand Nudge Wrote: Well, yes, ofc.  If someone asks me to explain the existence of some delusion that a person holds..I'm going to point to a person capable of holding a delusion.  Is there something strange in this that you'd like to object to?

Explaining the existence of a belief in a man in the sky hammering out stars is as simple as pointing to people who hold this belief.  There needs be no other reason for this belief to exist.  It does not have to refer in any way to a world exterior to a human mind.

All this is irrelevant, I'm afraid. If you accept the causality principle, you're forced to account for your own existence. Unless you think the latter principle is some delusion one has in his head.....

(October 22, 2020 at 10:13 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Well, there we go.  Infinite regress is impossible.  Positing your super abled god necessitates another even more super abled thing to create it, and a hyper abled thing to create that, so on and so forth ad infinitum.

I think there is a slight misunderstanding here. I am not asking you to agree with the premise -that infinite regress is impossible, I know you don't. I am telling you that the entire argument is sound. 

(1) Infinite regress is impossible

(2) Something that begins to exist has a cause.

Therefore there has to be a first cause.

The conclusion does follow from the premises. So your ad infinitum part bets an infinite regress of actual causes.

(October 22, 2020 at 10:40 am)Klorophyll Wrote: And I already explained how these categorizations are not up to us, remember? If a god out there truly makes rejecting compelling evidence gravely immoral, then rejecting compelling evidence is gravely immoral. Case closed. End of the story.
Muslims don't have some feud with kafirs. They just follow handed down rules.

You keep missing the point entirely.  Sure, you follow your handed down rules - and people object to those rules.  There's no misconception.  You can stomp your feet and call us stupid and say that it just is that way from here to eternity - but it's not as if human beings have never objected to rules that exist. A tyrant that exists is still a tyrant - and isn't made less so on account of being real.

Quote:All this is irrelevant, I'm afraid. If you accept the causality principle, you're forced to account for your own existence. Unless you think the latter principle is some delusion one has in his head.....

I have very little trouble accounting for my own existence.  I met the people involved.

Quote:I think there is a slight misunderstanding here. I am not asking you to agree with the premise -that infinite regress is impossible, I know you don't. I am telling you that the entire argument is sound. 

(1) Infinite regress is impossible

(2) Something that begins to exist has a cause.

Therefore there has to be a first cause.

The conclusion does follow from the premises. So your ad infinitum part bets an infinite regress of actual causes.

Yes, that's what you're telling me.  The problem is that what you're telling me is demonstrably false.

If an assertion leading to infinite regress demonstrates that there is a problem with the assertion because infinite regress is impossible, then your argument is categorically unsound by your own stated metrics. This is always the trouble when we invent rules in order to immediately break them. If something that begins to exist must have a cause then a god who begins to exist must have a cause. If a god that does not begin to exist can evade the asserted clause then so can a cosmos in an identical state. Let's just toss all of that aside, though. Let's assume that your trash god is really real, and these are the real rules, that really exist.

There's more than a slight misunderstanding. We can bicker about these things above until we're blue in the face - but none of them will clear up any misconception, and none of them will magically compel me to islam. You think that reason and evidence demonstrates that a god exists. It doesn't, but frankly it wouldn't matter if it did, now would it? Real or imaginary, your god is trash. If what you believe is true, let that sink in...if what you believe is true... then I'm uninterested in being a part of it. You can't clear this misconception up, nor can you credibly call it a misconception, if you affirm the truth of the things I object to.

Understand?

(October 22, 2020 at 11:59 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: You keep missing the point entirely.  Sure, you follow your handed down rules - and people object to those rules.  There's no misconception.  You can stomp your feet and call us stupid and say that it just is that way from here to eternity - but it's not as if human beings have never objected to rules that exist.  A tyrant that exists is still a tyrant - and isn't made less so on account of being real.

Yeah, I know, people object to Islam per se, even if cleared of any misconception. But again, this is not what the thread is about. Besides, many people, maybe not you, can actually change their opinion towards Islam when they learn more about it.
Be that as it may, it's always smart to obey a tyrant, if the latter is capable of inflicting huge damage to one's self.

(October 22, 2020 at 11:59 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I have very little trouble accounting for my own existence.  I met the people involved.

I didn't know your curiosity about your existence is that narrow.

(October 22, 2020 at 11:59 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Yes, that's what you're telling me.  The problem is that what you're telling me is demonstrably false.

If an assertion leading to infinite regress demonstrates that there is a problem with the assertion because infinite regress is impossible, then your argument is categorically unsound by your own stated metrics.  This is always the trouble when we invent rules in order to immediately break them.  If something that begins to exist must have a cause then a god who begins to exist must have a cause.  If a god that does not begin to exist can evade the asserted clause then so can a cosmos in an identical state.  Let's just toss all of that aside, though.  Let's assume that your trash god is really real, and these are the real rules, that really exist.

Well, this is not the argument. We know this universe exists, after some finite or infinite causal chain that took place. An infinite causal chain cannot occur, therefore the universe is definitely preceeded by a finite causal chain.
As you can see, nothing leads to infinite regress, we just have two possibilites and eliminated one of them.

(October 22, 2020 at 11:59 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: There's more than a slight misunderstanding.  We can bicker about these things above until we're blue in the face - but none of them will clear up any misconception, and none of them will magically compel me to islam.  You think that reason and evidence demonstrates that a god exists.  It doesn't, but frankly it wouldn't matter if it did, now would it?  Real or imaginary, your god is trash.  If what you believe is true, let that sink in...if what you believe is true... then I'm uninterested in being a part of it.  You can't clear this misconception up, nor can you credibly call it a misconception, if you affirm the truth of the things I object to.

Understand?

Yeah, you're free not to join the religion after being presented with evidence. You won't be the first one to do so.

(October 22, 2020 at 12:51 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Yeah, you're free not to join the religion after being presented with evidence. You won't be the first one to do so.

You're starting to get it.  

The evidence I've seen has lead me to conclude that your god is trash and I don't want to be involved.   The asserted bullshit that you've offered...granted as evident for purposes of pure discussion, have convinced me that your god is trash and I don't want to be involved.

All evidence, real and imaginary, points to one conclusion.

I'm glad that you've granted me this freedom..but what does magic book say about kafir again? You don't get to decide these things yourself, remember? I'm sure that there are more than a few terrorist nutters who think it's a real shame that they have to get all quranic on my ass, and those poor eskimos - but them's the breaks.

It's best to obey a tyrant, after all.

Quote:Muslims don't have some feud with kafirs. They just follow handed down rules.

That argument has been used before: ‘Ve vas chust followink orders.’

Boru