(October 10, 2009 at 11:54 pm)padraic Wrote:

Quote:So humans are [basically] the product of one lucky monkey (out of infinity) or they were created by something that could at least imagine all the human dimensions.

False dichotomy; I said no such thing, neither does the theory of evolution.Neither are those two options the only two. EG mainstream Christianity accepts evolution,but insists on a divine first cause.It's only the lunar religious right which remains in a state of denial about evolution. (Most,like you show no signs of actually having read Darwin)

I didn't say you said it either, wow! Why are you bringing up evolution? I was just commenting on the universe - which seems to have all the natural laws and the circumstances to produce humans. Reading Darwin would only give me an antiquated and simplistic view of something that has been revised extensively and expanded upon immensely over many, many years.

Are you going to share the other options for our origin? When I said unpurposed/random or purposed, what would you say instead? So far you've just made a bald assertion, without providing any reason for me to believe you. List the other options or drop the fallacy claim (after all, dichotomies are not fallacious in and of themselves).

By the way, saying something about evolution without considering the origin of the principles that guide it (chemistry, physics, etc) is incomplete. Evolution is said to be guided by natural selection, but evolution does not explain where humans came from... There is far more going into the creation/accident of humans than evolution - get it?

Quote:

Quote:I would think that our existence is most probably designed. An accident is too improbable to expect.

"Argument from incredulity" one of the most common logical fallacies used by apologists.

Naturally, it was a tongue in cheek re-adaptation of the extraordinarily common and popular atheistic claim that God is too improbable to be concerned with...

Quote:If you discovered (for the first time) the works of Shakespeare in the wild, isn't it fairly safe to assume they were produced by intelligence since they are so intelligible?

But would your first inclination be to ascribe authorship to an invisible sky-daddy or would you assume that a careless hiker had dropped them?

Perhaps you need to read The Blind Watchmaker or The God Delusion but I'm not going to hold my breath. Instinct tells me that you merely seek vindication for your fairy tale world view...not challenge.

I'll make you an offer, just for the sake of argument. Let's assume that evolution has been disproven. You no longer have to attack it. Now, tell me what actual evidence you have that life began six thousand years ago in the middle east.

Well well then Solarwave. I have a question for you then

Who created the creator? If he is an infinite superbeing that made the universe and everything all around us, who created him or in other cases her?

Amp

Quote:I didn't say you said it either, wow! Why are you bringing up evolution?

Well,you seemed to :

Quote:So humans are [basically] the product of one lucky monkey (out of infinity) or they were created by something that could at least imagine all the human dimensions.

Quote:Are you going to share the other options for our origin?

No

Quote:Naturally, it was a tongue in cheek re-adaptation of the extraordinarily common and popular atheistic claim that God is too improbable to be concerned with...

My comment was based on what you actually said,not what you may have meant. I have never made such a claim,and don't actually know any atheists who have. It's uncommon on the many atheist forums I've visited.

Quote:Evolution is said to be guided by natural selection, but evolution does not explain where humans came from...

Well,it does actually,and very clearly. Evolution does not explain the origin or the universe.That area of study is called 'cosmology'.

Quote:There is far more going into the creation/accident of humans than evolution - get it?

No I don't get it.

(October 10, 2009 at 10:50 pm)ecolox Wrote: Humans have conscious intelligence. Can that just happen?

No. It needs an explanation. It has one: Evolution.

Quote:The universe is governed by unseen, intelligible constraints. If the universe makes sense then can't we assume it had an intelligent source?

No. What a massive assumption to make. You then would need to explain such a source. You'd need to explain God, and then explain whatever explained him.

We have intelligence, but we have an explanation: Evolution - unlike God, who doesn't have one. And it's not rational to assume things exist - i.e.: "God" - without an explanation, and without evidence.

Quote:One that is inline/compatible with our own intelligence.

Intelligence develops through evolution. It comes about through less intelligent means.

The universe doesn't have to have a mind in order for us to have minds to understand it.

Quote:For example: If you discovered (for the first time) the works of Shakespeare in the wild, isn't it fairly safe to assume they were produced by intelligence since they are so intelligible?

No. That's not an assumption, that's a fact we understand that books are written by intelligent beings - i.e. us people - and they don't evolve. What about Shakespeare who wrote his works though? He was born, and the explanation for where he came from, is in his genes: Which comes about through evolution.

Quote: Or perhaps one of the infinite monkeys typed it out by accident? I don't know, just tell me how this is wrong.

It's wrong because it's a creationist argument that lacks an understanding of evolution. Dawkins deals with this in The Blind Watchmaker. He even tackles the whole pathetic typewriters argument.

Evolution doesn't have by accident or all of a sudden. It's the very opposite, it happens naturally and incredibly gradually and slowly.

EvF

• It’s true because I want it to be true.
• It’s true because I believe it true.
• It’s true because many others whom I respect believe it true.
• It’s true because it’s always been believed to be true.
• It’s true because it serves my selfish interests to believe it true.

The believer's inclination...

• The inclination to fail-to-notice, ignore or forget evidence that contradicts our beliefs and remember evidence that supports them.
• The inclination to think in absolutist ways with a narrow point of view.
• The inclination to see ourselves as always right, in possession of absolute truth.
• The inclination to overlook the inconsistencies in what we say we believe verses what our actions indicate.
• The inclination to ignore the complexity of an issue in favor of a shallow analysis, especially when doing so serves the interest of validating our beliefs.
• The inclination to overlook absurdities and contradictions in thinking that supports our beliefs.
• The inclination to react defensively when our beliefs come under scrutiny, especially when we fear, or know, they are flawed.

(October 11, 2009 at 6:07 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(October 10, 2009 at 10:50 pm)ecolox Wrote: Humans have conscious intelligence. Can that just happen?

No. It needs an explanation. It has one: Evolution.

Evolution can't operate without the universe, which can't operate without God. You have to explain everything - not just evolution - to really explain conscious intelligence (physics, chemistry, abiogenesis, evolution, how does the universe exist, etc).

Plus, evolution is not even complete as a explanation - still incomplete.

---

(October 11, 2009 at 1:07 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:If you discovered (for the first time) the works of Shakespeare in the wild, isn't it fairly safe to assume they were produced by intelligence since they are so intelligible?

But would your first inclination be to ascribe authorship to an invisible sky-daddy or would you assume that a careless hiker had dropped them?

I had never seen a book before, so why would I think a comrade dropped it?

Quote:Perhaps you need to read The Blind Watchmaker or The God Delusion but I'm not going to hold my breath. Instinct tells me that you merely seek vindication for your fairy tale world view...not challenge.

I've read chapters from both already and I'll read them in their entirety if I can for free. I wouldn't buy them, since I try not to waste money. I try to buy only the things I need to, or less.

Quote:I'll make you an offer, just for the sake of argument. Let's assume that evolution has been disproven. You no longer have to attack it. Now, tell me what actual evidence you have that life began six thousand years ago in the middle east.

I'm not trying to disprove evolution. Though I am not dogmatic about affirming it either...honestly it doesn't matter that much.

That's a cop out answer. And about what I expected.

(October 11, 2009 at 1:32 pm)ecolox Wrote: Evolution can't operate without the universe, which can't operate without God.

How so? How can't it operate without God? How is God required at all?

The universe can't operate with God if he doesn't exist, and give me some evidence that he exists. Instead of merely asserting that he is required for the universe without actually evidencing that.

Quote:You have to explain everything - not just evolution - to really explain conscious intelligence (physics, chemistry, abiogenesis, evolution, how does the universe exist, etc).

No one has explained it all yet. We don't know where the laws of physics come from. Some, such as yourself, claim that "God did it". But they, and you, fail to explain where God comes from - and also, how he's at all required. You are merely barely asserting that he exists and that he is required, if he exists, how does he? What reason is there to believe that he does? And how is he required in order for the universe to exist? Why does he have to cause it - or "create" it?

Quote:Plus, evolution is not even complete as a explanation - still incomplete.

Evolution has more evidence being gathered all the time...science actually progresses, unlike religion. Evolution has tons of evidence, unlike God.

And if you are suggesting - as I've seen you do so before - that evolution is "incomplete" because that it doesn't explain where life comes from (or even where the universe comes from): It's not supposed to. That isn't what evolution is about. Evolution is about how life evolves, not where it comes from, and it's got nothing to do with the creation of the universe.

Know one knows completely where the universe came from originally yet, no one knows fully yet, no one knows of the first cause yet - But that's not what evolution is about, it's got nothing to do with evolution...

...and what about God? How does he explain it? He doesn't: Because he's just asserted as an explanation, and an explanation isn't an explanation if it's just a completely unwarranted baseless assertion.

EvF

Classic examples of moving the goalposts. As soon as we show you that conscious intelligence can be explained through evolution without the need for God, you just move the goalposts back to the start of everything.

Take a bit of a run up, and then hop, skip, and a jump into a logical fallacy.