(April 6, 2025 at 4:23 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: Honestly, I should just share the PM "proof" since that's what this thread was supposed to be about.

Rule 16 - Posting the contents of private correspondence with other members is not allowed.

(April 6, 2025 at 4:27 pm)arewethereyet Wrote:

(April 6, 2025 at 4:23 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: Honestly, I should just share the PM "proof" since that's what this thread was supposed to be about.

Rule 16 - Posting the contents of private correspondence with other members is not allowed.

Which is precisely why I'm not. I have studied up. *Best behavior posture*

(April 5, 2025 at 12:57 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 5, 2025 at 9:26 am)Order Wrote: Hello,
I sincerely want to help people who are questioning the existence of God. I will not promote any religion. I will prove the existence of God to you in a way you have probably never heard before, clearly, as clear as 2 plus 2 equals 4.
Actually I am not sure whether I should do this, because I dont think many people truly deserve it.
Instead of explaining it to you directly, I want to ask questions that will lead you to discover it yourself, that way, it will be more meaningful.
I believe it would be best to do this through private messages, so please message me directly.

Whether a theist or atheist there is room for doubt of either claim. There is evidence in favor of either claim (though atheists never admit this).

Atheism is not a claim. There is no objective evidence any deity exists or is even possible, but please present the best you think you have.

(April 5, 2025 at 2:22 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 5, 2025 at 1:53 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: (Bold mine)

I disagree. I have no doubt that gods do not exist. I may be wrong, but I’m not uncertain.

Boru

I'm a theist but I'm not 100% sure. How can anyone be certain how a universe that caused intelligent life to exist was caused inadvertently by mindless natural forces? Do we 'know' such forces alone could do that? Do we know they did do that? Where does your certainty come from?

Natural phenomena exist as an objective fact, we already know they are possible beyond any reasonable doubt. You are the one adding inexplicable magic, from a deity you can demonstrate no objective evidence is even possible. And you are still, using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy by suggesting there is any truth to the claim the universe required a creator, because we can't offer an alternative explanation. Atheism is not a claim, it is disbelieving a claim, and it therefore has no burden of proof.

It's worth observing that ants create structures which, in their particularity, aren't natural in the sense that the laws of nature in and of themselves create said structures. But neither is the structure the result of any planning or design. They are emergent from the regularity of ant behavior, applied to specific environments, creating the particular and specific structure. Not that one needs additional examples over and above the fact that naturally occurring phenomena present the appearance of design which is only negated when the causal order which resulted in that appearance is understood. This is one of the reasons the argument from design is so underwhelming. We know from experience that an appearance of design is not reliably indicative of design. Only by arguing from a false dichotomy that if the cause of the appearance is not explained naturally, then a non-natural explanation is the only alternative. Which of course completely ignores other possibilities such as unknown causal narratives or hypotheses.

(April 6, 2025 at 4:38 pm)Angrboda Wrote: It's worth observing that ants create structures which, in their particularity, aren't natural in the sense that the laws of nature in and of themselves create said structures.  But neither is the structure the result of any planning or design.  They are emergent as the regularity of ant behavior, applied to specific environments, creates the particular and specific structure.  Not that one needs additional examples over and above the fact that naturally occurring phenomena present the appearance of design which is only negated when the causal order which resulted in that appearance is understood.  This is one of the reasons the argument from design is so underwhelming.  We know from experience that an appearance of design is not reliably indicative of design.  Only by arguing from a false dichotomy that if the cause of the appearance is not explained naturally, then a non-natural explanation is the only alternative.  Which of course completely ignores other possibilities such as unknown causal narratives or hypotheses.

They usually obfuscate what they mean by plan, designer, et al by vaguely gesturing at the universe but also being very specific to things we observe on Earth.

(April 6, 2025 at 11:38 am)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 5, 2025 at 6:40 pm)Sheldon Wrote: That's an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, it is fallacious to argue that anything is true because we lack an alternative explanation. It is also an objective fact the the universe and natural processes exist, but there is no objective evidence any deity or anything supernatural exists, or that they're even possible.

The universe and natural processes do exist. But they didn't cause themselves to exist right? 

Oh, and how do you know this? 

Quote:The evidence of a Creator is the fine-tuning of the universe for life. I just wrote a post detailing some of that.

Circular reasoning fallacy, you are begging the question. Please demonstrate objectively verifiable evidence that the universe is "fine tuned", otherwise I have to remain dubious. The fact we lack a complete explanation for the origins of the universe past the point of the big bang, does not in any way evidence your claim it was created, or required creating. 
And before you posit a deity, you would need to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence a deity exists or is even possible. The claim a deity did it, also has no explanatory powers whatsoever.

I don't believe the universe has been finely tuned, but even if it had, this is not in and of itself evidence for any deity, why would it be?

1. There are only two probabilities it happened or it didn't everything else is just incredulity

2. The universe isn't fine tuned for life it's life that fine tuned to the universe because if it wasn't nobody would be around to bother asking about it 

3. Any attempt to use current configuration of the cosmos as an argument for or against anything rest on flawed assumption the universe has always functioned as it does now 

4. Multiverses if they exist can absolutely go through a form of natural selection

5. There is no reason to believe processes have not always existed in some form

Paley’s watch is broken.

Boru

(April 6, 2025 at 4:38 pm)Angrboda Wrote: It's worth observing that ants create structures which, in their particularity, aren't natural in the sense that the laws of nature in and of themselves create said structures.  But neither is the structure the result of any planning or design.  They are emergent from the regularity of ant behavior, applied to specific environments, creating the particular and specific structure.  Not that one needs additional examples over and above the fact that naturally occurring phenomena present the appearance of design which is only negated when the causal order which resulted in that appearance is understood.  This is one of the reasons the argument from design is so underwhelming.  We know from experience that an appearance of design is not reliably indicative of design.  Only by arguing from a false dichotomy that if the cause of the appearance is not explained naturally, then a non-natural explanation is the only alternative.  Which of course completely ignores other possibilities such as unknown causal narratives or hypotheses.

I think I am a little disappointed there isn't some little ant architect working at a teeny, tiny drafting table.