Rhythm

Since you're actually attempting to make a case for what you believe I'll respond to your post.

In order for us sentient beings to exist, the information required to produce that result had to be present when the universe began to exist, it couldn't be added later.

Quote:Hardly, interaction is a very useful way of "creating" novel patterns and information. We see it at play all the time. Take an A, add a B, You have AB, Same A, add the AB - AAB/or B add AB BAB - we can rearrange all of this and continue to cram them together producing a massive array of new and novel patterns that didn't exist before their interaction with nothing but an A and a B. We can do the same with just the A, or just the B.

Lets start with interaction first. When it comes to mindless lifeless forces we observe interacting we notice they only interact when acted upon, they don't initiate their own action because they don't have volitional will to decide to do something. Sentient beings like humans for instance can initiate actions that subsequently lead to reactions. Since lifeless mindless forces don't initiate action or reaction how did the series of actions and reactions we observe in the universe ever start to begin with? But I digress. To your point, you actually unwittingly make my point for me. If you start with A and B (a lot of A's and B's) and they mindlessly without plan or purpose interact you will probably get every combination of A and B possible. But all you could hope to get is combinations of A and B because thats what you started with. You couldn't hope to produce out of just A and B the rest of the alphabet or believe the combination of A and B would produce a novel.

Why would mindless forces that don't care about planets, stars or humans have such information?

Quote:Why wouldn't they?

Because they are at best mindless lifeless forces that don't care if planets exist, if stars exist, if galaxies exist or least of all if sentient life exists. How would mindless lifeless forces acquire the information content needed to cause such things to exist? Its the same reason when we drop a box of 200 toothpicks from 50 feet and it produces a random unpredictable pattern, because the mindless forces that interact don't care if they produce a knowable symetrical pattern. If I dropped the box of toothpicks and they produced clear as a bell the writing 'Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country' would you in response say well why wouldn't they spell out such a message?

You claim the universe we observe is what you'd expect from mindless lifeless forces that didn't intend life or sentience to exist, would you expect such forces to create life and sentience?

Quote:It is, they did, and yes, I would.

What are your other expectations from mindless forces? Could mindless forces given enough time and chance produce the Mona Lisa? Or the works of Shakespeare? Or a super computer? Why not? If we had no other explanation for such things and the creator of them wasn't in sight why wouldn't it according to you be credible that mindless forces create things of arguably less sophistication than a universe with its laws of nature and sentient beings?

Quote:The basis, firstly, that we are here and we can't find your sentient force (not for lack of looking either).

So if we came to a planet in another solar system and found bulidings and vehicles and roads and such but no living beings you'd conclude those things must have occurred by natural forces that didn't intend their existence? I look around my office and see an airconditioner a couple of laptops and a telephone but I don't see the creator of those things anywhere in site, I guess I'll assume that mindless forces that didn't intent to create such things caused them, because in our everyday life mindless forces are always going about creating useful things. I opened up the computer and viola no creator was inside...guess mindless forces must have caused it to exist.

Quote:Why would it have to be created to support life at all? Why would life need any supporting (perhaps you didn't realize this, but the very notion that life needs supporting lands you firmly in the territory of no god - just biology) ? In any case, it isn't a matter of "if"....but, if that's all you';re going for, you're merely attempting to create a scenario in which a universe created by god and a universe not created by god are entirely similar in every observable way. You're travelling uphill in the hopes of reaching me somewhere near the summit. Seeing as I don't have to invoke an unknown, un-evidenced, unproven - and ergo baseless-assertion...I think I'll stick with -no god-.

So in other words in the world of atheist logic, a universe that appears to have been intentionally designed to cause and support life is actually evidence that mindless forces without plan or intent caused such because if God caused it God would have done so in a on going miraculous manner that woudn't require the conditions needed to support life. That story will go over fine with your fellow atheists. Not sure how convincing it would be to impartial folks not committed to either view point.

(March 31, 2013 at 3:17 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Rhythm

Since you're actually attempting to make a case for what you believe I'll respond to your post.

No Drew, I'm not. I'm trying to help you understand why you have failed to make your case. Whatever I believed, if I believed anything at all would be irrelevant, it's not a binary situation whereby if you were wrong I would be right or vice versa. You have to make your own case...and if you start to deflect over what you imagine to be the case of another - you're already listing away from doing the work required.

Quote:Lets start with interaction first. When it comes to mindless lifeless forces we observe interacting we notice they only interact when acted upon, they don't initiate their own action because they don't have volitional will to decide to do something. Sentient beings like humans for instance can initiate actions that subsequently lead to reactions.

And? Sentient humans can also be acted upon without any involvement from their will. I'm sure you think this goes somewhere, I assure you it doesn't.

Quote: Since lifeless mindless forces don't initiate action or reaction how did the series of actions and reactions we observe in the universe ever start to begin with? But I digress.

We don't know, and by we...I mean both of us.

Quote:To your point, you actually unwittingly make my point for me. If you start with A and B (a lot of A's and B's) and they mindlessly without plan or purpose interact you will probably get every combination of A and B possible. But all you could hope to get is combinations of A and B because thats what you started with. You couldn't hope to produce out of just A and B the rest of the alphabet or believe the combination of A and B would produce a novel.

No, I don't unwittingly make your point, your wits have failed you, and your faith has attempted to shoehorn what I've written into it's own narrative. Every combination of A and B possible very accurately describes chemical evolution, whereby A and B produce AB - an entirely different substance with it;s own unique properties - itself getting thrown back into the mix. What about this is difficult to understand? AB did not exist before the interaction. Sure, our very limited minds (and eyes) see the a and b and go - "well thats not different" - but if you could manage, just for a moment, to realize that we're not talking about a's and b's...I doubt it would give you much trouble. A and B would produce a novel full of A and B and every permutation thereof. I'm not sure what you think your objection is here?

Quote:Because they are at best mindless lifeless forces that don't care if planets exist, if stars exist, if galaxies exist or least of all if sentient life exists.

I'll give you the benfit of the doubt and assume that you honestly didn't realize that I was responding to the second part of that statement...lol

Quote:How would mindless lifeless forces acquire the information content needed to cause such things to exist?

Interaction, thats a;ready been explained to you. Ask again, you'll get the same answer.

Quote:Its the same reason when we drop a box of 200 toothpicks from 50 feet and it produces a random unpredictable pattern,

No, it doesn't. It produces a something that we perceive as random (and random patterns is an amusing one btw) because we cannot predict it.

Quote:because the mindless forces that interact don't care if they produce a knowable symetrical pattern.

Whether or not they care if they produce a pattern and whether or not they produce a pattern wouldn't exactly be the same discussion, now would it. The benefit I gave you above is wearing thin.

Quote: If I dropped the box of toothpicks and they produced clear as a bell the writing 'Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country' would you in response say well why wouldn't they spell out such a message?

You haven't explained why this couldn't happen. How many times do you plan to drop that box of toothpicks? In any case, this puts the poker to your argument more succinctly than anything else in your post. You've either knowingly or unknowingly smuggled your conclusion into the argument you hope to support it with. You're asking me for a desired outcome, a desired pattern. Yes Drew, your "random" box of matches would have patterns in the debris. How is this different from the patterns you observe in the universe around you (mind you, there would be patterns there, in that pile, for precisely the same reason that there are patterns in the universe ) Until you can resist the urge argue in circles...it's going to be rough going. In a nutshell, your entire argument implies a designer by invoking design (in the same way you couldn;t seem to form this question without invoking yourself as the designer and the pattern in the matches the intended outcome), and then concludes that there's a designer. You must establish the existence of this designer, you must establish the existence of this design. These are your first steps. It's still all ahead of you even then, as you'll have to turn your designer into a god, then that god into your god. This is what would be required to make a case for theism.

Quote:What are your other expectations from mindless forces? Could mindless forces given enough time and chance produce the Mona Lisa?

They did.....you really don't get it do you?

Quote: Or the works of Shakespeare?

Yes.

Quote: Or a super computer?

Yes

Quote: Why not?

Why not what?

Quote:If we had no other explanation for such things and the creator of them wasn't in sight

We don't, and there isn't any "creator" in sight. It's not even an issue of not having any other explanations - that would imply that the explanations we have aren't good, well evidenced, well argued ones. Which they are.

Quote:why wouldn't it according to you be credible that mindless forces create things of arguably less sophistication than a universe with its laws of nature and sentient beings?

I don't recall ever saying that they couldn't. We're not having a discussion about what mindless forces might or could have doen, but what they did, aren't we? After all, we're talking about our universe, no hypothetical required.

Quote:So if we came to a planet in another solar system and found bulidings and vehicles and roads and such

If your god built buildings, roads and vehicles I doubt we'd be having this discussion. He didn't though, did he, so the point in this aside would be what?

Quote:but no living beings you'd conclude those things must have occurred by natural forces that didn't intend their existence?

Meh, if we're talking about an alien world - its entirely reasonable to accept that what you might think looks alot like a building is no such thing. In the same way that here, on our planet, things that look like they must have been built often aren't.

Quote: I look around my office and see an airconditioner a couple of laptops and a telephone but I don't see the creator of those things anywhere in site,

You don't?

Quote: I guess I'll assume that mindless forces that didn't intent to create such things caused them, because in our everyday life mindless forces are always going about creating useful things.

Well, that's true, they are going about "creating" useful things - but in the case of phones - if you wanted to be myopic about it - you'd be engaging in hilariously unreasonable behavior.

Quote:I opened up the computer and viola no creator was inside...guess mindless forces must have caused it to exist.

Again, to be myopic, you'd be engaging in the same hilariously unreasonable behavior.

Quote:So in other words in the world of atheist logic, a universe that appears to have been intentionally designed to cause and support life

If you could find a universe like that it would be easier to have a discussion about it. Get to work.

Quote:is actually evidence that mindless forces without plan or intent caused such because if God caused it God would have done so in a on going miraculous manner that woudn't require the conditions needed to support life.

Not sure where you got the first bit from, but yeah - I would question the notion that some creator god has to toe the biological line. Wouldn;t you? Or is that just something you'd rather leave unquestioned?

Quote: That story will go over fine with your fellow atheists. Not sure how convincing it would be to impartial folks not committed to either view point.

Whose story, mine, or the one you concocted from it?

Were you going to make your case at any point? You do realize that this is what is required. I've said it before, I'll say it again. Everything I know is horribly, utterly wrong. I have it all fucked up somehow. Now that this is done (and to be blunt, it shouldn't have had to come to this, you should have known that no matter how wrong I might be that you wouldn't be right by default. Now your workload is going to be massive, you'e going to have to establish the entirety of all the things and facts you like, and how we arrive at them...from the very bottom) - you can begin to explain to me how you know you have it right.

You understand, yes? This has always been the failure of the creationist position. Incapable of making their own case, narrowly focused on attacking the explanations offered by others. Now whether or not those criticism have value, meh, I don't care to bicker with you over idiocy. The crux of it, is that it wouldn't matter if they were. If all you have, in -support- of your own argument is that "it all looks designed to me" then I'm going to have to tell you that this is just a failure of your imagination - and even if it were "designed"- you still don't have your case. " I just don't understand how-......." Tough titty, it isn't as though you couldn't just educate yourself, ffs.

(March 31, 2013 at 3:17 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote:
In order for us sentient beings to exist, the information required to produce that result had to be present when the universe began to exist, it couldn't be added later.

Quote:Hardly, interaction is a very useful way of "creating" novel patterns and information. We see it at play all the time. Take an A, add a B, You have AB, Same A, add the AB - AAB/or B add AB BAB - we can rearrange all of this and continue to cram them together producing a massive array of new and novel patterns that didn't exist before their interaction with nothing but an A and a B. We can do the same with just the A, or just the B.

Lets start with interaction first. When it comes to mindless lifeless forces we observe interacting we notice they only interact when acted upon, they don't initiate their own action because they don't have volitional will to decide to do something. Sentient beings like humans for instance can initiate actions that subsequently lead to reactions. Since lifeless mindless forces don't initiate action or reaction how did the series of actions and reactions we observe in the universe ever start to begin with?

Let me introduce you to my little friend....

Wikipedia Wrote:Self-organization is a process where some form of global order or coordination arises out of the local interactions between the components of an initially disordered system. This process is spontaneous: it is not directed or controlled by any agent or subsystem inside or outside of the system; however, the laws followed by the process and its initial conditions may have been chosen or caused by an agent. It is often triggered by random fluctuations that are amplified by positive feedback. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized or distributed over all the components of the system. As such it is typically very robust and able to survive and self-repair substantial damage or perturbations.

Self-organization occurs in a variety of physical, chemical, biological, social and cognitive systems. Common examples are crystallization, the emergence of convection patterns in a liquid heated from below, chemical oscillators, the invisible hand of the market, swarming in groups of animals, and the way neural networks learn to recognize complex patterns.

— Wikipedia:

And because there is an "entropy gap" caused by the differential between the inflation rate of the universe and the general entropy curve expected of a static universe, there is plenty of negative entropy to drive both regular order and emergent self-order.

Beyond that, there are (at least) two major hurdles which you not only have not yet faced, you don't even appear to be aware that they even exist.

The first is that the low probability of an event, in and of itself, is not sufficient to establish design. This has been discussed ad nauseam in the literature on intelligent design (and the same arguments apply, ceteris paribus, to your fine tuning argument). Hell, even Dembski acknowledges this, which is why there's all the fake math in his books. Even if I grant you that the universe's current configuration is highly improbable, that still is not enough to warrant an inference to design. Read Dembski. Read his critics. Then come back to us when you've absorbed the proper lessons.

And the second hurdle I'm not even going to tell you, as you strike me as a dishonest sophist, and teaching you new tricks would just result in strengthening the appeal of your fallacious arguments so that you can deceive more people more efficiently.

---

(March 31, 2013 at 3:17 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: So in other words in the world of atheist logic, a universe that appears to have been intentionally designed to cause and support life is actually evidence that mindless forces without plan or intent caused such because if God caused it God would have done so in a on going miraculous manner that woudn't require the conditions needed to support life. That story will go over fine with your fellow atheists. Not sure how convincing it would be to impartial folks not committed to either view point.

I couldn't help but get a chuckle out of this. If they aren't "fellow atheists," then they must be theists. It's hardly surprising that theists would find an argument from design persuasive and one from non-design unsettling. They're theists, after all, you moronic ass choad. Once more, problems with the law of the excluded middle bite you in the ass. *rolls-eyes*

Since you're actually attempting to make a case for what you believe I'll respond to your post.

Quote:No Drew, I'm not. I'm trying to help you understand why you have failed to make your case. Whatever I believed, if I believed anything at all would be irrelevant, it's not a binary situation whereby if you were wrong I would be right or vice versa. You have to make your own case...and if you start to deflect over what you imagine to be the case of another - you're already listing away from doing the work required.

Pardon me did I mistakenly lead you to believe I give a rats ass if think I've made a case or not? In case there was any ambiguity I don't care what your opinion is. I'm responding to what you wrote if I find it interesting, nothing more.

Lets start with interaction first. When it comes to mindless lifeless forces we observe interacting we notice they only interact when acted upon, they don't initiate their own action because they don't have volitional will to decide to do something. Sentient beings like humans for instance can initiate actions that subsequently lead to reactions.

Quote:And? Sentient humans can also be acted upon without any involvement from their will. I'm sure you think this goes somewhere, I assure you it doesn't.

Just because the point eludes you doesn't mean its going no where your assurances not withstanding.

Since lifeless mindless forces don't initiate action or reaction how did the series of actions and reactions we observe in the universe ever start to begin with? But I digress.

Quote:We don't know, and by we...I mean both of us.

We do know that autonomous sentient beings can initiate action. By saying you don't know then you mean you don't know if we owe our existence to a Creator or not...true?

Quote:No, I don't unwittingly make your point, your wits have failed you, and your faith has attempted to shoehorn what I've written into it's own narrative. Every combination of A and B possible very accurately describes chemical evolution, whereby A and B produce AB - an entirely different substance with it;s own unique properties - itself getting thrown back into the mix. What about this is difficult to understand? AB did not exist before the interaction. Sure, our very limited minds (and eyes) see the a and b and go - "well thats not different" - but if you could manage, just for a moment, to realize that we're not talking about a's and b's...I doubt it would give you much trouble. A and B would produce a novel full of A and B and every permutation thereof. I'm not sure what you think your objection is here?

Try re-reading what I wrote, I can't dummy it down any further.

Quote:Whether or not they care if they produce a pattern and whether or not they produce a pattern wouldn't exactly be the same discussion, now would it. The benefit I gave you above is wearing thin.

I didn't ask for any benefit. The point is mindless forces unlike sentient beings, can't plan, design or care about a particular outcome. This is what we observe when mindless forces are given free reign in contrast to the laws of nature which appear to work with clock like regularity.

If I dropped the box of toothpicks and they produced clear as a bell the writing 'Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country' would you in response say well why wouldn't they spell out such a message?

Quote:You haven't explained why this couldn't happen.

I didn't say it couldn't happen, I asked if in response would you say 'well why wouldn't they spell out such a message?' It was actually a rhetorical question because you'd have be a grade A dimwit to ask such a question if such an incredibly unlikely event occurred.

Still this is an interesting question will an extremely unlikely event occur given enough time and chances to occur. Or more to the point, because something could happen does it mean it will happen? I don't think it can be proven but I would say no. Even though its possible to flip a coin heads 10,000 times in a row does it mean it would happen even if the entire universe was full of coins flipping at the speed of light? I would think even after 13.7 billion years you might get one instance where a coin came up heads 52 times in a row but then tails. But what if 50 billion years from now all of a sudden one of the coins gets on a roll and hits a streak of 1000 heads. After billions of years never getting a streak higher than 52 hits in a row suddenly this coin hits a thousand in a row. My reaction would be to figure out what was wrong with the coin or find some other explanation. I wouldn't be satisfied with thinking it was just an unbelievable stroke of luck or think just because it could happen that means it will happen given enough time and chances.

What are your other expectations from mindless forces? Could mindless forces given enough time and chance produce the Mona Lisa?

Quote:They did.....you really don't get it do you?

Not without the intervention of mind somewhere in the process.

Quote:I don't recall ever saying that they couldn't. We're not having a discussion about what mindless forces might or could have doen, but what they did, aren't we? After all, we're talking about our universe, no hypothetical required.

Its not a hypothetical to me that the universe exists. What I'm debating is whether mindless, lifeless forces without plan or intent caused a universe to exist with the right characteristics to cause something unlike it self, life and mind or whether such came about as the result of plan and design by a Creator. That in a nutshell is the case of theism vs atheism.

So in other words in the world of atheist logic, a universe that appears to have been intentionally designed to cause and support life

Quote:If you could find a universe like that it would be easier to have a discussion about it. Get to work.

I'm in luck we live in such a one.

---

Quote:Let me introduce you to my little friend....

Wikipedia Wrote:Self-organization is a process where some form of global order or coordination arises out of the local interactions between the components of an initially disordered system. This process is spontaneous: it is not directed or controlled by any agent or subsystem inside or outside of the system; however, the laws followed by the process and its initial conditions may have been chosen or caused by an agent. It is often triggered by random fluctuations that are amplified by positive feedback. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized or distributed over all the components of the system. As such it is typically very robust and able to survive and self-repair substantial damage or perturbations.

Self-organization occurs in a variety of physical, chemical, biological, social and cognitive systems. Common examples are crystallization, the emergence of convection patterns in a liquid heated from below, chemical oscillators, the invisible hand of the market, swarming in groups of animals, and the way neural networks learn to recognize complex patterns.

It's a shame you have so few friends you consider a Wikipedia article to be a friend. I couldn't be more dishonest then you a person who claims to be fair minded and impartial yet only attacks what I write. Let's talk about honesty and being disingenuous. You have stated to me several times you're not an atheist and you claim below if a person isn't an atheist there a theist, I don't believe that's true and I don't think you do either but it is what you say. Since according to you you're not an atheist then you are a theist. Yet you have disagreed with nearly every line of evidence or argument I have made in spite of the fact you evidently agree with my conclusion that we owe our existence to a transcendent creator of great power. After all this is what you wrote ' If they aren't "fellow atheists," then they must be theists' in fact according to you, you found that amusing. Now I am taking you at your word and that you couldn't be so damn stupid that you made this statement but forgot you yourself don't fall into either category. Since you are a theist, but disagree with the evidence I have submitted and it appears you disagree with any evidence in favor of theism, why not tell everyone on this board your reasoning, logic and evidence that leads you to believe in theism? Even if you disagree with my reasons and evidence, maybe I'll agree with yours.

I don't necessarily disagree with the articles you cited about self-organization and self-order. The fact such occurs is due to the laws of nature , the same reason there are planets, solar systems, stars and galaxies. The question is why would mindless forces that don't care if there are planets, stars or galaxies or care if self-organization or self order occur or care if life exists or sentient humans exist wind up in an extremely narrow set of characteristics to allow such to occur. I typically get two rebuttals from atheists (although they have repeatedly stated they don't necessarily believe the rebuttals are true) how much stock should I or anyone put in a rebuttal that the person making it won't commit to whether they believe it or not.

Rebuttal 1. Maybe for some unknown (but naturalistic reason) the universe had to be the way we observe it. In other words according to this theory (which they don't actually believe is true) if a universe exists at all, it must for some reason be in a configuration that allows and even causes sentient human life to exist. Isn't that special that mindless forces that didn't plan, design or intend for us to exist nevertheless are compelled by some unknown law of nature (that also didn't plan or intend the existence of planets, stars, galaxies and sentient life) to produce something unlike itself, life and sentience. No wonder atheists don't actually believe this nonsense.

Rebuttal 2.

Now they do a complete 180 degree reversal on the previous objection they don't believe in and claim that our universe maybe one of an infinitude of universes with differing characteristics and we by that old gospel standby time and chance happen to be in the one that allows our existence. They probably lack belief in this claim also but it is objection worthy as is any potential rebuttal regardless of evidence, something they always demand of others but never require of themselves. But since you evidently share my belief in theism even though you disagree with the evidence I submit I suppose it doesn't really matter in the long run.

(April 1, 2013 at 8:22 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Pardon me did I mistakenly lead you to believe I give a rats ass if think I've made a case or not? In case there was any ambiguity I don't care what your opinion is. I'm responding to what you wrote if I find it interesting, nothing more.

Is that code for "I can't support my position"...? I assumed, what with you taking the time (at least) to write out a summary of what you found compelling about others arguments from design that you might appreciate the usefulness of feedback from someone who disagrees. Refine your approach, trim the fat - so to speak.

Quote:Just because the point eludes you doesn't mean its going no where your assurances not withstanding.

If the point has eluded me, and if you wish to make it - as the bearer of said point...that would be a failure on your part you might want to remedy.

Quote:We do know that autonomous sentient beings can initiate action. By saying you don't know then you mean you don't know if we owe our existence to a Creator or not...true?

You'd like to modify you claim, see..that's what I was hoping for (and it;s honestly what you needed to do anyway - because my statement still stands, neither of us know how everything ultimately "began". Unfortunately for your modification - that doesn't mean that we don;t know some of the ways it didn't - which is a group of things that includes your design and your designer - unless you'd like to establish the existence of either in the face of massive evidence to the contrary. That would be impressive, and I'd love to see you do it.

Quote:Try re-reading what I wrote, I can't dummy it down any further.

Finally, a point where we agree......

Quote:I didn't ask for any benefit. The point is mindless forces unlike sentient beings, can't plan, design or care about a particular outcome. This is what we observe when mindless forces are given free reign in contrast to the laws of nature which appear to work with clock like regularity.

I know, but I'm a generous guy, and I figure that if somebody tales the time to put their marbles behind this argument you may as well extend a little courtesy - up to a point...maybe they really thought it was cutting edge, you know?

Quote:I didn't say it couldn't happen, I asked if in response would you say 'well why wouldn't they spell out such a message?' It was actually a rhetorical question because you'd have be a grade A dimwit to ask such a question if such an incredibly unlikely event occurred.

Which still doesn't answer the question of "why wouldn't they?" Whether or not I'm a grade A idiot or your run of the mill grade d idiot - you still aren't making your own argument.

Quote:Still this is an interesting question will an extremely unlikely event occur given enough time and chances to occur. Or more to the point, because something could happen does it mean it will happen? I don't think it can be proven but I would say no. Even though its possible to flip a coin heads 10,000 times in a row does it mean it would happen even if the entire universe was full of coins flipping at the speed of light? I would think even after 13.7 billion years you might get one instance where a coin came up heads 52 times in a row but then tails. But what if 50 billion years from now all of a sudden one of the coins gets on a roll and hits a streak of 1000 heads. After billions of years never getting a streak higher than 52 hits in a row suddenly this coin hits a thousand in a row. My reaction would be to figure out what was wrong with the coin or find some other explanation. I wouldn't be satisfied with thinking it was just an unbelievable stroke of luck or think just because it could happen that means it will happen given enough time and chances.

Why would anything have to be wrong with the coin. If it's well within the parameters of chance and it happens - we're looking at a mystery that is mysteriously lacking in....well....mystery.

Quote:Not without the intervention of mind somewhere in the process.

A mind which arose from and is still dependent upon the interaction of "mindless lifeless" yadda yadda.

Quote:Its not a hypothetical to me that the universe exists.

Good, good, because that would be an awfully low place to start - we might never get to the end of this.

Quote: What I'm debating is whether mindless, lifeless forces

I've already said this more than once, but you keep repeating it like a mantra - it isn't the "lifeless" bit that bothers you. Next time it comes up I'm going to stand on the point of your gods biology and you'll have even more work to do.

Quote:without plan or intent caused a universe to exist with the right characteristics to cause something unlike it self,

again - like above - I've already addressed this. You are not "unlike" the universe. End of.

Quote: life and mind or whether such came about as the result of plan and design by a Creator. That in a nutshell is the case of theism vs atheism.

A case for which you will, at some point, have to come up with a plan, or a designer. There's no avoiding it.

Quote:I'm in luck we live in such a one.

The trouble, is that you havent established that, you just keep repeating it like your casting a damned spell.....

Quote:Is that code for "I can't support my position"...? I assumed, what with you taking the time (at least) to write out a summary of what you found compelling about others arguments from design that you might appreciate the usefulness of feedback from someone who disagrees. Refine your approach, trim the fat - so to speak.

It is useful to get into the mindset of the atheist and I do check to see if atheists have any new arguments but in Serlingese I'm not submitting my case for their approval. Most atheists I have met are hard core believers, advocates and apologists for atheism. For all the arrogance of atheists who act as if it's obvious from the facts that God doesn't exist and that we owe our existence to natural forces that didn't plan or intend our existence the fact is they have precious little in the way of facts or evidence to support that conclusion. Most won't even try, instead they go for the atheism is a lack of belief dodge and the burden of evidence rests with the theist. That rhetoric is fine on an atheist board but if we we're debating this issue before a group of impartial people not committed to either point of view, that rhertoric isn't going anywhere. Why would they be persuaded that God doesn't exist from people who at best only lack such belief? The rest of the atheists case is built upon nebulous theories they often don't believe themselves but offer up as counter possibilities to explain away the facts that do support the case of theism.

I have already been going at this for 25 pages and have made my case from 5 lines of evidence. Your coming late to the party. Some of my other adversaries have apparently bailed from this debate, that's fine, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. At this point I am working on my 'closing argument' then I will wrap things up and you guys can go back to reassuring each other there's no evidence in favor of theism.

It might be useful, but you don't seem to be able to actually do it.

(April 2, 2013 at 11:25 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: It is useful to get into the mindset of the atheist and I do check to see if atheists have any new arguments but in Serlingese I'm not submitting my case for their approval. Most atheists I have met are hard core believers, advocates and apologists for atheism.

One wonders why something as mundane as atheism requires apologetics at all? I don't think you understand what that word means.

Quote:For all the arrogance of atheists who act as if it's obvious from the facts that God doesn't exist and that we owe our existence to natural forces that didn't plan or intend our existence the fact is they have precious little in the way of facts or evidence to support that conclusion.

Whether or not atheists are arrogant is irrelevant to why you have failed to make your case. You won't make the case for theism by proving atheism wrong (nor will the arrogance of another make that case for you) ........help me help you, what about this is difficult to understand?

Quote:Most won't even try, instead they go for the atheism is a lack of belief dodge and the burden of evidence rests with the theist.

Because it does, you've claimed that there's a superfairy at the bottom of all the turtles. Now get to work.

Quote:That rhetoric is fine on an atheist board but if we we're debating this issue before a group of impartial people not committed to either point of view, that rhertoric isn't going anywhere.

The best you could hope for is someone concluding that neither party has presented a compelling case. Which is what I was talking about when I mentioned that you were arguing uphill.

Quote: Why would they be persuaded that God doesn't exist from people who at best only lack such belief? The rest of the atheists case is built upon nebulous theories they often don't believe themselves but offer up as counter possibilities to explain away the facts that do support the case of theism.

You must persuade them that god -does- exist. That's the nature of the relationship between claims, claimants, and the burden of proof.

Quote:I have already been going at this for 25 pages and have made my case from 5 lines of evidence. Your coming late to the party. Some of my other adversaries have apparently bailed from this debate, that's fine, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. At this point I am working on my 'closing argument' then I will wrap things up and you guys can go back to reassuring each other there's no evidence in favor of theism.

More accurately, you have -failed- to make your case after 25 pages....now you're hoping that I'll leave, or implying that somehow, by virtue of being the last man standing you will have established something? LOL, you're gonna have to try a little harder.

Now that we're done with the foreplay, are you going to present us with a design - or a designer? "I just can't believe that it could work without -insert whatever you like here-" is not compelling, it is not convincing, and it is not logical. You're suffering from a lack of imagination, nothing more.

Yo rhythm: feel like some ranked?

And stop picking on the noobs! That's my job!

Yeah, I'm game - give this hooker time to find his god. Logging in.