(February 24, 2013 at 6:02 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: If something isn't designed, planned or engineered to be in a specific configuration yet such a specific configuration occurs we can either believe it was by the luckiest stroke of coincidence imaginable or it was in fact planned and designed.

Take an ordinary pack of cards. Shuffle and cut as much as you like. Now deal out any number of them you want, say the first ten. The odds of that exact combination of cards appearing in that exact order are so absurdly astronomical that we have to believe it was either engineered to be in that specific configuration or else the luckiest stroke of coincidence imaginable. And yet you did it on your very first try.

(February 24, 2013 at 6:02 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Your argument is that mindless forces had to produce a universe and one in which life has to occur as a necessary consequence? You first argued there is no evidence the universe had to be as its observed and whether it had to be as it is or could be different is unknown. But now you state (still minus any evidence or fact) that the option it had to be as we observe is the most likely option. Based on what? Finally your third option doesn't avoid the dichotomy. Even if it had to be some consequence of the existence of nature, it was still the luckiest stroke of coincidence that if mindless forces cause a universe to exist, it has to be in the configuration that supports life as we know it. Now be honest...you don't really believe that bullshit do you?

You are the one spouting bullshit. Take note, specifically, of the bolded phrases you use. Then tell me where did I say even once that the universe was caused or produced. Also, where did I argue that there is no evidence that the universe had to be as its observed. It's the other way around. Its your position that it could've been something else that lacks any evidence.

My argument is the other way around. It is those forces that led to life that are inherent to the universe. Given the evidence that they cannot be changed or altered, the reasonable conclusion is that it is because they are a part of nature of existence. It is you who is claiming that they could've been something other than what they are and were specifically chosen to be what they are without any evidence.

(February 24, 2013 at 6:02 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Lets take the fact the iron core in the earth produces a magnetic field that protects the earth from harmful effects of the sun.

Earth doesn't need protection from the harmful effects of sun. Neither does all life. Your argument that the earth's core was designed to protect life to which some aspects of sun's rays would necessarily be harmful fails before being born.

(February 24, 2013 at 6:02 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: You don't honestly believe that some necessity of nature causes a spinning iron core to produce magnetic waves that fortuitously shields the earth do you?

Ofcourse I do. The material left over from sun's formation condensed in different areas to form proto-planets and the only ones stable enough to do so at close range would be heavy metals such as iron. That explains the iron core. The spinning is the result of laws of physics acting upon the body. Electrons flowing in circular motions lead to a magnetic field. The terrestrial earth had to be the way it is.

Also, I do not consider it fortuitous. In fact, I find it quite unfortunate. If the earth's magnetic field had not shielded us, life here would've evolved to be resistant to that radiation and thus it would've reduced potential problems for space travel.

(February 24, 2013 at 6:02 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: To say that the existence of human life is the neccesary consequence of the nature existence is to promote the very concept of the anthropomorphic principal you reject as a fallacy.

No, its not. And if you think that, clearly, you don't understand the anthropic principle to begin with.

(February 24, 2013 at 6:02 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: For the record this is another semantical argument the bogus notion that the burden of proof lies with the one making a positive claim.

The fact that you consider burden of proof to be a semantical argument shows your ignorance of how logic works.

(February 24, 2013 at 6:02 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: I can use semantics to turn a positive claim into an absence of belief. I can say I lack belief that mindless natural forces apart from plan or design could cause a universe to come into existence with just the right characteristics to produce life and sentience thus the burden of proof lies with those who claim that is how it happened. I can also just assert out of thin air that the default assumption is that we owe our existence to a Creator unless proven otherwise. Why not?

You can play all the semantic gymnastics you like and pull as many "default" positions out of your ass - that wouldn't shift the burden of proof. The premises agreed upon in this debate is that "forces of nature do exist and are responsible for formation of life". You are the one adding something extra (via argument from incredulity) that they would require a plan or design to do so. Cutting away all the semantics - you are the one making the positive claim. Similarly, the world we can perceive is taken as an accepted premise and therefore is the default position. The one adding a creator to it is making the positive claim.

(February 24, 2013 at 6:02 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: In reality (apart from the bogus atheist debating tactic) the debate is a philosophical debate about the mystery of our existence. The most basic philosophical question that can be asked is:

Is our existence and the existence of the universe the consequence of mindless forces that unintentionally produced life and sentient beings who could ponder the question? Or are we the result of a Creator who intentionally caused and designed the universe and sentient life to exist?

WRONG. That is not the most basic philosophical question and it shows the depth of your ignorance of the subject that you would consider it so. Those questions assume too many concepts and principles as given to be basic. They assume the existence of universe, existence of life, our existence, possibility of intention and purpose and existence of causality. The questions regarding these concepts would - by definition - be more basic to the ones you pulled out of your ass.

(February 24, 2013 at 6:02 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Neither explanation is less or more extraordinary than the other. People who believe the latter explanation have become known as theists, while those who subscribe to the former belief have become known as atheists (meaning not or without God). There is no inherent advantage to either position neither is either position an established fact. It isn't a fact there was no designer creator who caused the universe to exist and its not a fact there was.

On the contrary, the former is a fact.

(February 24, 2013 at 6:02 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: If I didn't specify I was referring to the gravitiation constant, obviously I misspoke.

You are misspeaking again. The number you refer to is not the gravitational constant. Seriously, do you even read your own arguments before you post them?

(February 24, 2013 at 6:02 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: I didn't invent or make up the figure I mentioned to you. It was from a book (Just Six Numbers) written by a highly esteemed british cosmologist and astrophysicist (not to mention he's an atheist). The whole point of this book was to illustrate the degree to which these 6 numbers must fall within a very specific range to have a universe certainly in which human life could exist but arguably any life could exist.

The following is from the preface of the book.

The cosmos........

Being an atheist and a naturalist Rees concludes that this is one of an infinitude of universes with differening characteristics so that naturally we would only find ourselves in a universe that had the right characteristics for life. I'd argue that the evidence he presents isn't evidence of other universes, its evidence that this universe was designed to produce life. Secondly his argument lacks evidence there are other universes and if so that there characteristics are different.

Now I know that you do not read the arguments that you make.

Nowhere in the argument there is any evidence of this "narrow" range you keep blabbering about. All the proposed variations are of high magnitude. Further, even with these high magnitude variations (indicated by words like "much larger" where figures aren't given), life would still be possible - according to Rees.

I'm curious, did you actually read his book or just thought that the preface seemed to support your argument?

(February 24, 2013 at 8:29 pm)genkaus Wrote: Now I know that you do not read the arguments that you make.

Nowhere in the argument there is any evidence of this "narrow" range you keep blabbering about. All the proposed variations are of high magnitude. Further, even with these high magnitude variations (indicated by words like "much larger" where figures aren't given), life would still be possible - according to Rees.

I'm curious, did you actually read his book or just thought that the preface seemed to support your argument?

Haven't you heard? He's not dealing in hypotheticals, only in things as they actually are. In essence, he's insulated himself from any form of counter argument by assuming that his every thought on the matter is absolutely correct. This is also why he keeps insisting that the atheist position is something that it's not.

Esquilax,

Quote:If you're not responding to hypotheticals then isn't the conversation sort of over? I mean, you claim that the universe is set up in a narrow band of life supporting circumstances, but now you're saying you're not accepting any suggestion that things might be different because things aren't different. But that's a huge presupposition on it's own, because you can't say with any certainty that there is a narrow band to begin with. Like it or not, this conversation exists in hypotheticals; if you're just not accepting them then all you're really doing is shaking your head at the entire opposing viewpoint for no reason other than your own assumptions that things couldn't possibly be any different.

The only hypotheitical or postulate is whether the universe and our existence is the result of a transcendent personal agent who designed and caused the universe to exist or whether our existence and the universe is the result of mindless forces that didn't plan, engineer or intend our existence. The way you argue a case is to present facts that support your hypothesis. The problem with most theist-atheist debates is they inject other hypotheiticals into the mix so what you wind up with is offering speculative theories in favor of a speculative theory. I'm attempting to avoid that mess by limiting lines of evidence to well established facts, then argue from those facts why I think its evidence in favor of my hypothesis. The other side can offer rebuttals to any evidence offered and why they think it doesn't favor the hypothesis. They can also offer well established facts in favor of their position.

It isn't an established fact the constants had to be what they are due to some unknown law or if the constants arbritrarily took on the values we observe. What we do know and what is a fact that the constants do have to be within an extremely small degree of what they are for life as we know it to exist. This is not a hypothetical, it's a fact supported by knowledge that if they weren't what we observe them to be in some cases to a mindnumbing degree of exacting tolerance human life wouldn't exist and in some cases it could be argued no life would exist. I argue from that fact it is evidence of design and plan. Of course those who hold with atheism will argue anyway you can that this is meaningless, doesn't indicate design and so forth. But the merit of our respective arguments is properly decided by those who are impartial and undecided about this issue, not those arguing in favor of a certain position. That would be like going to court, arguing a case yet you can only win if your opponent agree's with you...fat chance of that happening.

Quote:No, sorry. You're wrong. Let me see if I can put this another way: I'm not saying there's no god. I'm saying I don't believe in your god, because you haven't proved it.

My God is the God of theism.


the·ism
[thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism ).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism )

Your atheism is to my theism. Notice how atheists only get the 'a' in front of it meaning not or without. For example the word asexual means reproduction without or not with sex. Atheists believe in the existence of the universe without or not with God.

God is defined as

God
[god] Show IPA
noun
1.
the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

If this isn't the God you don't believe exists then you have so basterdized the word atheism that it no longer means anything except what you want it to mean.

Quote:You're an atheist too, you know; when it comes to Zeus and Athena and all those other defunct gods you hold exactly the same position that I do. Does it then follow that you're saying those gods could never have existed? Do you have a burden of proof to show us that they are nonexistent?

Yet another in an endless series of semantical arguments put forth by confused atheists. The God of theism isn't a specific God of any religion. It is belief in the existence of God, Supreme Being, Creator and ruler of the universe.

Quote:The question of whether or not there's a designer isn't core to the atheist belief system;

Perhaps not according to you because you seem quite confused about what you think. If I were to ask atheists if they believe the universe was designed and engineered by a transcendent agent of great power the overwhelming majority would reject that notion...that's why there atheists. By the way, I'm not suggesting either point of view can be proved, but what I can do is show good reason and evidence as to why I believe we are the result of a transcendent agent of great power.

Quote: it's "I don't know whether or not there is a designer, nor the extent to which such a being conforms to the persona detailed in earthly religious texts."

Thats closer to an agnostic position.

Quote:No, I wouldn't find it compelling but then again I don't know of any atheist that's making that claim. Why not just stop at the "I haven't a clue" part and then add "but let's keep looking."

It would be very refreshing if atheists did confess to ignorance on the subject and claimed to not have a clue as to whether God exists or not. But that's not what the majority of atheists do. I can show you site after site where atheists equate the existence of God on the same par as the existence of Santa Clause, Tooth Faires, Green Goblins and Invisible Pink elephants. I can show you another site that declares the non-existence of God is as scientifically proven as the non-existence of life on the moon. Of course if you take them to task they'll launch yet another semantical argument about how you can't prove a negative.

Quote:Look above, I already admitted that there might be a designer. That doesn't threaten my atheism, either. But my admitting that possibility doesn't mean I believe it unreservedly, nor does it mean that you've escaped the burden of proof regarding not only the existence of such a designer, but the identity of it too. What if that designer was Cthulhu?

You're not just a weak atheist...you're a tepid atheist. From what you say, woudn't it be more accurate to put Religious Views ?????? rather than atheist?

Quote:What I'm saying is, this question of random chance and low probabilities is moot, because if we are all here by chance, our existences aren't in question. No matter how low the chance might have been, if there was a random element at all, it definitely happened.

Fine, and people can decide for themselves whether our existence is due to the most fortioutious stroke of luck and act of serendipity imaginable or whether it happened because it was designed and engineered to happen.

Quote:No. We recognize design by contrasting it with other examples of design. We know the pyramids are designed because we can look at other monuments or buildings. We can find evidence that they were designed.

And what is it about buildings or momunments that tells us they were created by design and engineering?

Quote:This argument falls apart when you consider all the magnificently low probability things that exist in nature; think of the Tessellating Pavement in my home state of Tasmania. It's a perfectly geometric patch of ground, and yet it wasn't designed, it just looks like it. It is, in fact, perfectly natural. Hell, just look at all the celestial bodies out there that look like other things to us when we see them through a telescope; all those are random too, while looking designed.

I remember a shadow on Mars looked like Pee Wee Herman but even if so, I doubt that was any sign of intelligence. http://atheistforums.org/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

(February 25, 2013 at 3:52 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: The only hypotheitical or postulate is whether the universe and our existence is the result of a transcendent personal agent who designed and caused the universe to exist or whether our existence and the universe is the result of mindless forces that didn't plan, engineer or intend our existence. The way you argue a case is to present facts that support your hypothesis. The problem with most theist-atheist debates is they inject other hypotheiticals into the mix so what you wind up with is offering speculative theories in favor of a speculative theory. I'm attempting to avoid that mess by limiting lines of evidence to well established facts, then argue from those facts why I think its evidence in favor of my hypothesis. The other side can offer rebuttals to any evidence offered and why they think it doesn't favor the hypothesis. They can also offer well established facts in favor of their position.

Except that you've provided a single piece of evidence- that life exists within a narrow band that is the only conditions that can support it- and you're wrong about that. Now, when we provide a counter argument to show you that you're balancing on an assumption that doesn't really hold up, you don't even consider it, you just shake your head and refuse hypothetical answers.

But here's the critical issue: your narrow band argument is itself a hypothetical, because you can't for a moment prove that life couldn't have developed under a set of very different conditions. You've certainly asserted it, and backed it with some stuff, but you cannot prove it to the certainty you're claiming it is. Essentially what you're doing is favoring your own theory just because it's yours, and disregarding any others out of hand for no reason. This is not good science, and I'm becoming increasingly convinced that you don't actually want to have a debate at all, given how all you do is restate your original premise over and over without justifying it.

Quote:It isn't an established fact the constants had to be what they are due to some unknown law or if the constants arbritrarily took on the values we observe. What we do know and what is a fact that the constants do have to be within an extremely small degree of what they are for life as we know it to exist.

Yep, and if you want to prove that a designer exists by way of this "it's such a small chance of happening!" argument, then you need to justify swapping out that 'as we know it' for an 'at all.' Because if life can evolve another way then it's a safe bet to say that it can evolve in many other ways, and by that point the chances of life arising, possibly in more hardy forms than are currently on earth, could actually be fairly large.

Quote: This is not a hypothetical, it's a fact supported by knowledge that if they weren't what we observe them to be in some cases to a mindnumbing degree of exacting tolerance human life wouldn't exist and in some cases it could be argued no life would exist. I argue from that fact it is evidence of design and plan.

Then you need to actually argue that. Because all you've done is point to something that you claim is a small probability event, without providing sufficient evidence to believe even that claim, and gone "see? see?" as if that should prove your position. Your entire argument is an argument from personal incredulity: you can't believe that life could have arisen from a small chance event like this- never mind whether it is or isn't- therefore god.

Quote: Of course those who hold with atheism will argue anyway you can that this is meaningless, doesn't indicate design and so forth. But the merit of our respective arguments is properly decided by those who are impartial and undecided about this issue, not those arguing in favor of a certain position. That would be like going to court, arguing a case yet you can only win if your opponent agree's with you...fat chance of that happening.

I think the idea is that a reasonable person can be swayed by a cogent argument. As an atheist, I'm invested only in the facts, so I would be. You'd just have to present a piece of evidence that is actually compelling first.

Quote:Your atheism is to my theism. Notice how atheists only get the 'a' in front of it meaning not or without. For example the word asexual means reproduction without or not with sex. Atheists believe in the existence of the universe without or not with God.

Yeah, I'm not actually obligated to follow a strict dictionary definition of things. And look, you are starting to become really rude, harping on this point. I'm going to be blunt now, in hopes of getting through to you: you do not get to tell me what I believe. I will tell you what I believe. What you think I believe does not count as a valid argument for anything, because YOU DO NOT GET TO TELL ME WHAT I BELIEVE.

Am I understood? Do you get it now? You've made this one strawman argument over and over, apparently immune to anyone's objections, so there it is, plain as day. If you keep arguing this point, I'll have to consider you fundamentally unreasonable about it.

Quote:Yet another in an endless series of semantical arguments put forth by confused atheists. The God of theism isn't a specific God of any religion. It is belief in the existence of God, Supreme Being, Creator and ruler of the universe.

Excuse me? How is this semantic? Just a few posts ago you were demanding that we all had a burden of proof to show that god doesn't exist, so all I did was show you a reason why that position is ridiculous.

Tell me, do you have a single string of argumentation that doesn't boil down to "nuh uh!"

Quote:Perhaps not according to you because you seem quite confused about what you think.

No, I'm very clear about what I think. It just doesn't fit into your neat little boxes, and therefore confuses you.

Quote: If I were to ask atheists if they believe the universe was designed and engineered by a transcendent agent of great power...

Then you would get a different, distinct answer from each atheist. Because despite your repeated, baseless demands to the contrary, the position of atheism isn't an insistence on no creator being, just that one had better be able to come correct and prove such a being, and that nobody has, yet.

Raelians believe in a creator of life, without believing that it's god. They're technically atheists yet hold to a belief in creation. How do they fit into your narrow minded preconceptions about my peeps?

Quote:
Thats closer to an agnostic position.

That's right, I'm an agnostic atheist, with anti-theist leanings. So what?

Quote:It would be very refreshing if atheists did confess to ignorance on the subject and claimed to not have a clue as to whether God exists or not. But that's not what the majority of atheists do.

It would be nice if you could do the same, and at least consider our opposing arguments, then.

Quote: I can show you site after site where atheists equate the existence of God on the same par as the existence of Santa Clause, Tooth Faires, Green Goblins and Invisible Pink elephants.

Actually, my admission of ignorance is consistent with this statement. To me, your god is in the same category with santa, at the moment. You'd need to prove it, if you wanted to make me believe in the reality of such a being. I refuse to believe without evidence that passes muster.

Quote: I can show you another site that declares the non-existence of God is as scientifically proven as the non-existence of life on the moon. Of course if you take them to task they'll launch yet another semantical argument about how you can't prove a negative.

And do you not see how meaningless it is to make blanket statements about an entire group of people based on the behaviors of specific members? Sure, some people are gnostic atheists and claim to know that god doesn't exist; I'm not one of them, nor is every atheist. Yet you claim that we are. I bet if I made some blanket claim about what theists believe you'd be insulted, so why don't we get the same treatment from you?

Quote:You're not just a weak atheist...you're a tepid atheist. From what you say, woudn't it be more accurate to put Religious Views ?????? rather than atheist?

No, because I don't believe in a god, let alone yours. I just will if you can prove it. Notably, that doesn't mean I'll worship it, but I'll believe that it's there.

Quote:Fine, and people can decide for themselves whether our existence is due to the most fortioutious stroke of luck and act of serendipity imaginable or whether it happened because it was designed and engineered to happen.

Well, just so long as you aren't presenting a strawman. /sarcasm.

Do you still not get that we find your narrow band argument to be unconvincing, because you haven't proved the existence of a narrow band? Have you even read a single counterargument we've made?

Quote:And what is it about buildings or momunments that tells us they were created by design and engineering?

Because we can see the elements of design in them, based on our prior understanding of the concept. Because, if we wanted to, we could find the builder, see the plans, reverse the process and imagine how the construction happened.

All things we are unable to do with god.

Quote:I remember a shadow on Mars looked like Pee Wee Herman but even if so, I doubt that was any sign of intelligence. http://atheistforums.org/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

So why claim design at all? You do understand that you just made my argument there, don't you?

Hi Stimbo,

Quote:Take an ordinary pack of cards. Shuffle and cut as much as you like. Now deal out any number of them you want, say the first ten. The odds of that exact combination of cards appearing in that exact order are so absurdly astronomical that we have to believe it was either engineered to be in that specific configuration or else the luckiest stroke of coincidence imaginable. And yet you did it on your very first try.

Did you really think about this before you wrote it? Since it makes no difference which cards come out or in which order the odds are excellent you will get 10 non-specific cards in a non-specific order.

Of course I didn't think about it, I just closed my eyes and let my fingers type randomly on the keyboard as usual. Did you think about your response before you wrote it? Because you clearly haven't spotted that you made my point for me while simultaneously failing to make the connection between it and your argument from design. Special pleading at its finest.

Quote:My argument is the other way around. It is those forces that led to life that are inherent to the universe. Given the evidence that they cannot be changed or altered, the reasonable conclusion is that it is because they are a part of nature of existence. It is you who is claiming that they could've been something other than what they are and were specifically chosen to be what they are without any evidence.

I agree it doesn't appear the laws of physics can be altered after the big bang. My position is its not an established fact either way. It is an established fact that at least half a dozen constants have to be within an astounding degree of tolerance for a universe with stars, planets, galaxies and ultimately humans to exist. Its no less peculiar if for some unknown reason the laws of physics had to be in a configuration that supports life. You don't believe nature cared if humans came about, if stars came about or if planets came about or if the the laws of physics were such that stars created new elements by fusion that ultimately became the stuff planets are made of. You don't believe there was plan or design involved so even if the laws of nature had to be as they are (for some unknown reason) its still by happenstance that they had to be as we observe them. If it wasn't by happenstance then it was by design or plan.

Quote:Earth doesn't need protection from the harmful effects of sun. Neither does all life. Your argument that the earth's core was designed to protect life to which some aspects of sun's rays would necessarily be harmful fails before being born.

Earth doesn't need protection from the sun but our atmosphere does. This is one of the reasons Mars no longer has an atmosphere because it has a very weak magnetic field.

You don't honestly believe that some necessity of nature causes a spinning iron core to produce magnetic waves that fortuitously shields the earth do you?

Quote:Of course I do. The material left over from sun's formation condensed in different areas to form proto-planets and the only ones stable enough to do so at close range would be heavy metals such as iron. That explains the iron core. The spinning is the result of laws of physics acting upon the body. Electrons flowing in circular motions lead to a magnetic field. The terrestrial earth had to be the way it is.

But you don't believe it was by plan or design that the laws of physics as observed happen to be in a configuration that allows human life to exist. If it wasn't by plan or design that the laws of nature for some unknown reason had to be as they are then its still fortuitous that the conditions that allowed life and sentience to exist obtained. You don't really have any other choice in the matter, if it wasn't by plan or design then it was happenstance.

Quote:Also, I do not consider it fortuitous. In fact, I find it quite unfortunate. If the earth's magnetic field had not shielded us, life here would've evolved to be resistant to that radiation and thus it would've reduced potential problems for space travel.

There is now way to know that's what would have happened or that life would have begun to exist under such circumstances.

To say that the existence of human life is the neccesary consequence of the nature existence is to promote the very concept of the anthropomorphic principal you reject as a fallacy.

Quote:No, its not. And if you think that, clearly, you don't understand the anthropic principle to begin with.

In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable that the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life.[1]

I'll let the readers decide for themselves what it means.

I can use semantics to turn a positive claim into an absence of belief. I can say I lack belief that mindless natural forces apart from plan or design could cause a universe to come into existence with just the right characteristics to produce life and sentience thus the burden of proof lies with those who claim that is how it happened. I can also just assert out of thin air that the default assumption is that we owe our existence to a Creator unless proven otherwise. Why not?

Quote:You can play all the semantic gymnastics you like and pull as many "default" positions out of your ass - that wouldn't shift the burden of proof. The premises agreed upon in this debate is that "forces of nature do exist and are responsible for formation of life". You are the one adding something extra (via argument from incredulity) that they would require a plan or design to do so. Cutting away all the semantics - you are the one making the positive claim. Similarly, the world we can perceive is taken as an accepted premise and therefore is the default position. The one adding a creator to it is making the positive claim.

I have no more burden of proof in this debate than atheists do. This notion of a postive vs a negative is atheist clap trap that you buy into hook line and sinker. As I demonstated above I have no problem framing the debate as a lack of belief I can say I lack belief that mindless natural forces apart from plan or design could cause a universe to come into existence with just the right characteristics to produce life and sentience thus the burden of proof lies with those who claim that is how it happened. Do you dare to think beyond the atheist sound bites you've been indoctrinated with? If atheists don't believe something happened, they refer to it as being skeptical and freethinking. If theists are skeptical of something you call it an argument from incredulity.

If you really want to cut the semantics here is what the debate is about. You believe the existence of the universe and humans was caused by natural mindless forces that didn't plan, design or intend our existence to occur. I believe our existence and that of the universe was caused, planned and designed by a personal transcendent agent commonly referred to as God.

Quote: The most basic philosophical question that can be asked is: Is our existence and the existence of the universe the consequence of mindless forces that unintentionally produced life and sentient beings who could ponder the question? Or are we the result of a Creator who intentionally caused and designed the universe and sentient life to exist?

Quote:WRONG. That is not the most basic philosophical question and it shows the depth of your ignorance of the subject that you would consider it so. Those questions assume too many concepts and principles as given to be basic. They assume the existence of universe, existence of life, our existence, possibility of intention and purpose and existence of causality. The questions regarding these concepts would - by definition - be more basic to the ones you pulled out of your ass.

This is a pathetic response. Rather than address the issue raised you want to argue whether these are the most basic philosophical questions that can be asked. Pathetic but not unexpected.

Quote:Nowhere in the argument there is any evidence of this "narrow" range you keep blabbering about

The whole point of the book was to give a reason why he believes this is one of an infinitude of universes with different characteristics which is the only naturalist explanation he can think of as to why we find ourselves in a universe with nearly precisely the characteristics needed not only for life, but for planets, stars and galaxies to exist. He responds to the rebuttal some propose that the constants are the way they are because of some unknown law of physics. He counters it by saying its still inexplicable that if a universe comes into existence it has to have the characteristics to support life as we know it. How can one say on the one hand nature doesn't care and didn't intend for humans to exist or care if planets and stars exist but at the same time claim there is an unknown law of nature that demands these things exist. Not to mention it invokes the anthropic principal you deny.

Quote:I'm curious, did you actually read his book or just thought that the preface seemed to support your argument?

I have read it and have a copy but I don't think the managment of this board would approve if I copied the entire contents to this forum.

(February 27, 2013 at 5:46 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: I agree it doesn't appear the laws of physics can be altered after the big bang. My position is its not an established fact either way. It is an established fact that at least half a dozen constants have to be within an astounding degree of tolerance for a universe with stars, planets, galaxies and ultimately humans to exist. Its no less peculiar if for some unknown reason the laws of physics had to be in a configuration that supports life. You don't believe nature cared if humans came about, if stars came about or if planets came about or if the the laws of physics were such that stars created new elements by fusion that ultimately became the stuff planets are made of. You don't believe there was plan or design involved so even if the laws of nature had to be as they are (for some unknown reason) its still by happenstance that they had to be as we observe them. If it wasn't by happenstance then it was by design or plan.

Actually, it is not an established fact that they have to be within an astounding degree of tolerance - something that has been refuted over and over again and yet you keep bringing it up. Pretty much the same way you keep bringing up the false dichotomy between happenstance and design. Let me be clear - I do not believe it was by plan and I do not believe it was by happenstance.

(February 27, 2013 at 5:46 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Earth doesn't need protection from the sun but our atmosphere does. This is one of the reasons Mars no longer has an atmosphere because it has a very weak magnetic field.

That still doesn't prove that life wouldn't be possible.

(February 27, 2013 at 5:46 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: But you don't believe it was by plan or design that the laws of physics as observed happen to be in a configuration that allows human life to exist. If it wasn't by plan or design that the laws of nature for some unknown reason had to be as they are then its still fortuitous that the conditions that allowed life and sentience to exist obtained. You don't really have any other choice in the matter, if it wasn't by plan or design then it was happenstance.

I have answered this enough times already for it to be clear even to someone like you. It wasn't happenstance - it was necessity. I do not buy into your false dichotomy.

(February 27, 2013 at 5:46 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: There is now way to know that's what would have happened or that life would have begun to exist under such circumstances.

As long as you admit to your lack of knowledge, you should realize that then words like 'fortuitous', 'astounding' and 'happenstance' are not applicable.

(February 27, 2013 at 5:46 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: I'll let the readers decide for themselves what it means.

Another way of saying that you have no argument.

(February 27, 2013 at 5:46 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: I have no more burden of proof in this debate than atheists do. This notion of a postive vs a negative is atheist clap trap that you buy into hook line and sinker. As I demonstated above I have no problem framing the debate as a lack of belief I can say I lack belief that mindless natural forces apart from plan or design could cause a universe to come into existence with just the right characteristics to produce life and sentience thus the burden of proof lies with those who claim that is how it happened. Do you dare to think beyond the atheist sound bites you've been indoctrinated with? If atheists don't believe something happened, they refer to it as being skeptical and freethinking. If theists are skeptical of something you call it an argument from incredulity.

Since you are simply repeating your own argument and apparently haven't even read my rebuttal, I'll simply repeat it:

You can play all the semantic gymnastics you like and pull as many "default" positions out of your ass - that wouldn't shift the burden of proof. The premises agreed upon in this debate is that "forces of nature do exist and are responsible for formation of life". You are the one adding something extra (via argument from incredulity) that they would require a plan or design to do so. Cutting away all the semantics - you are the one making the positive claim. Similarly, the world we can perceive is taken as an accepted premise and therefore is the default position. The one adding a creator to it is making the positive claim.

(February 27, 2013 at 5:46 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: If you really want to cut the semantics here is what the debate is about. You believe the existence of the universe and humans was caused by natural mindless forces that didn't plan, design or intend our existence to occur. I believe our existence and that of the universe was caused, planned and designed by a personal transcendent agent commonly referred to as God.

I've corrected you how many times already? I do not believe that the existence of universe was caused.

Here's what we do agree on - the universe exists, 'mindless' natural forces operate within it and they eventually led to the existence of life. I'm not the one adding anything new to this set - you are. You are positing a) a cause of the universe, b) that the cause had a plan and design and c) that it is personal and transcendent. All those are positive claims which require to meet the burden of proof.

(February 27, 2013 at 5:46 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: This is a pathetic response. Rather than address the issue raised you want to argue whether these are the most basic philosophical questions that can be asked. Pathetic but not unexpected.

Only if pathetic is defined as pointing out where and why you are wrong. It is precisely this ignorance of philosophy that has led to your woeful state. If you don't start from the properly basic questions, how do you expect to arrive at the right answers?

(February 27, 2013 at 5:46 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: The whole point of the book was to give a reason why he believes this is one of an infinitude of universes with different characteristics which is the only naturalist explanation he can think of as to why we find ourselves in a universe with nearly precisely the characteristics needed not only for life, but for planets, stars and galaxies to exist. He responds to the rebuttal some propose that the constants are the way they are because of some unknown law of physics. He counters it by saying its still inexplicable that if a universe comes into existence it has to have the characteristics to support life as we know it. How can one say on the one hand nature doesn't care and didn't intend for humans to exist or care if planets and stars exist but at the same time claim there is an unknown law of nature that demands these things exist. Not to mention it invokes the anthropic principal you deny.

Your point being? Are you arguing with him or me?

Even if that was the only naturalist explanation he could think of doesn't make it the only naturalist explanation. Also, you still haven't provided the "narrow range" you keep harping about. What is this narrow range?

(February 27, 2013 at 5:46 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: I have read it and have a copy but I don't think the managment of this board would approve if I copied the entire contents to this forum.

So, you have read the book, have a copy and still haven't understood the preface? I think that's a new low.

Quote:Except that you've provided a single piece of evidence- that life exists within a narrow band that is the only conditions that can support it- and you're wrong about that. Now, when we provide a counter argument to show you that you're balancing on an assumption that doesn't really hold up, you don't even consider it, you just shake your head and refuse hypothetical answers.

Because if we go down the hypothetical road we'll spend endless time swapping theories that amount to mere just so stories. Why would you be opposed to limiting the debate to established facts? Your attempting to rebut the line of evidence I submitted by offering a mere possibility.

Quote:But here's the critical issue: your narrow band argument is itself a hypothetical, because you can't for a moment prove that life couldn't have developed under a set of very different conditions.

You guys are comical, you are so duped into the atheist orythodoxy you've lost the ability to think critically. If I told you, you can't prove God doesn't exist you'd launch into a diatribe about how you can't prove a negative. Why would I have to prove something that we have no evidence exists, doesn't exist? Try getting off the script you have memorized and try to do some freethinking.

Quote:You've certainly asserted it, and backed it with some stuff, but you cannot prove it to the certainty you're claiming it is. Essentially what you're doing is favoring your own theory just because it's yours, and disregarding any others out of hand for no reason. This is not good science, and I'm becoming increasingly convinced that you don't actually want to have a debate at all, given how all you do is restate your original premise over and over without justifying it.

Boo hoo hoo...

Quote:Yep, and if you want to prove that a designer exists by way of this "it's such a small chance of happening!" argument, then you need to justify swapping out that 'as we know it' for an 'at all.' Because if life can evolve another way then it's a safe bet to say that it can evolve in many other ways, and by that point the chances of life arising, possibly in more hardy forms than are currently on earth, could actually be fairly large.

I don't have to account for what ifs, you can manufacture what ifs from now until eternity. What happened to the atheists who told me they are only persuaded by facts? They're hiding under their desks now until is safe to come out. Whenever I go to an atheist board I am always told atheists they don't believe a Creator exists or lack belief in a Creator because supposedly there is no evidence. Yet when I supply evidence, they immediately counter not with evidence, but with hypotheticals. They sometimes counter with hypotheticals they don't even think are true.

Quote:Then you need to actually argue that. Because all you've done is point to something that you claim is a small probability event, without providing sufficient evidence to believe even that claim, and gone "see? see?" as if that should prove your position. Your entire argument is an argument from personal incredulity: you can't believe that life could have arisen from a small chance event like this- never mind whether it is or isn't- therefore god.

Oh stop it with the incredulity bullshit. This is one among many reasons I and other theists think our existence and that of the universe is the result of a Creator. The theist-atheist debate is a two way street. For me to be an atheist, it isn't enough I simply 'lack belief in the existence of God'. If there is no God, no creator no designer, then I need good reason or evidence to believe that mindless forces without plan or design somehow belched a universe into existence with the right characteristics to cause planets, stars and galaxies and that life emerged from non-life and sentience emerged from non-sentience. I have to believe that mindless, lifeless forces created without plan or intent, to something totally unlike itself. Where is the preponderance of evidence that could or did happen? There isn't any its just theories and speculation. Atheists just assume nature must have done it somehow since we 'know' there isn't a Creator.

Quote:I think the idea is that a reasonable person can be swayed by a cogent argument. As an atheist, I'm invested only in the facts, so I would be. You'd just have to present a piece of evidence that is actually compelling first.

There is no evidence I can submit that you won't rebut with a hypothetical and then claim because I can't disprove your hypothetical (which isn't a fact to begin with) that the evidence I presented is therefore a hypothetical. You are heavily invested in hypotheticals and theories that if true support your point of view. But since you are already totally convinced your point of view is true, in your mind a theory or hypothetical that supports your belief is just as valid since you already 'know' there is no God or Creator. You are not a reasonable person, you're not an impartial reviewer of fact, you are a solid believer and advocate of atheism.

Quote:Yeah, I'm not actually obligated to follow a strict dictionary definition of things.

I know, you've entitiled yourself to make things up as you go along.

Quote:No, I'm very clear about what I think. It just doesn't fit into your neat little boxes, and therefore confuses you.

How can we communicate when you have entitiled yourself to make up your own meanings of words?

Quote:Do you still not get that we find your narrow band argument to be unconvincing, because you haven't proved the existence of a narrow band? Have you even read a single counterargument we've made?

Do you not get I don't give a rats ass what my opponent in a debate thinks of my arguments or evidence I present. Do you think if I was making a case in a courtroom I'd ask for my adversaries approval?