Pretty sure an atheist can believe in anything - just not God.

The soul?
The afterlife?

(November 7, 2013 at 2:17 am)Lion IRC Wrote: The soul?
The afterlife?

Sure. An atheist can believe in a soul. There are many definition of the term that an atheist could accept.

As for an afterlife? Quantum Suicide Theory anyone?

(November 7, 2013 at 2:17 am)Lion IRC Wrote: The soul?
The afterlife?

Of course. There are all sorts of atheists. Some would believe in things even more preposterous than soul and afterlife. For example some might think the likes of you and CG are still salvageable.

(November 7, 2013 at 1:22 am)Jesus is Lord Wrote: -Information is a self-distinguishing kind of data that usually cannot be generated by its immediate context, and which refers to or interacts with elements which lay beyond the immediate context. Information may be self-referential, have predictive value, or clearly point to an abstraction layer.

I guess my next question is, how do you distinguish what's there naturally, versus this data that can't be generated by its surrounds? How can you tell that, say, what you're seeing isn't just a consequence of your existence as a pattern recognizing animal; how much of what you're seeing is a magic external set, and how much is you noting repetitions and properties in the interactions between certain inert physical entities?

For example, the earth shakes, and we can predict that such a thing will cause a tsunami because we've learned how such things work through observation and experimentation. That same earthquake causes a landslide, and you can predict where that boulder rolling toward you will land, because you have a mind that has evolved such predictive calculation skills as a survival mechanism. We can even predict the earthquake itself, because we understand how tectonic plates work, and fault lines. All this is data that fits your description of designed information, and it came about solely because we are intelligent animals that have developed the ability to learn through successive formative generations. No god required, and I'd submit to you that all other instances of this fall into exactly the same category.

It's just us, looking out and seeing the ways in which matter interacts.

Quote:An athiest cannot believe in anything beyond the observable physical universe. That is the essence of materialism.

It's also not what atheists are obligated to believe. Sorry bud, but we'll let you know what we think, not you. The sole position that an atheist, by definition, is required to hold, is disbelief in god claims. That says nothing about what else they believe, or their opinions regarding materialism, or even their stance on the possibility that the universe was created; it's entirely possible, we just think that all the gods currently proposed weren't the ones to do it.

(November 6, 2013 at 9:37 pm)Jesus is Lord Wrote: The Universe that we can measure and observe is one ruled by laws and order.

Whilst this may appear to be true there are whole parts of the universe that do not appear to follow rules or laws. There are parts of the universe we can, currently neither measure nor observe - merely deduce. These parts are apparently enormous (dark matter - 70% of the universe, dark energy 30% of the universe) which leaves a mere 1%, give or take, that is everything we can observe.

At the same time the idea that God needed to establish rules and laws for his creation is somewhat at odds with his ability to magic the universe out of nothing. Magic, by definition, cannot follow rules and laws.

This is part of the modern dichotomy of God. In the early days (of the church) there was, to all intents and purposes, no science. Everything was regarded as magic - God did it was enough.

As science progresses and explains more and more of how God did it the magic of God diminishes.

If we ever get to the point of solving exactly how he did it - to the point that we can make out own - does that make us Gods?

Quote:The very smallest elements which we can study have ordered forms, and follow laws which allow us to predict many, though not all behaviors.

Simply not true. Once you get down to sub-electron level things appear to be very chaotic indeed. We still do not know if there is a smalest elemental level (such as in string theory) or an infinite regression of ever decreasing size (the classical model).

Quote:Order itself, law itself cannot exist on its own; it requires something of a higher order to give it. A legal universe requires God for its origin.

Well bearing in mind the above we are somewhat redefining God. Again, why did God need to establish physical rules if he can magic things into existence? Surely he could have them behave as he wants with no discernible rhyme or reason for it?

In summary - if the question is - why is the universe as it is with specific rules, laws and constants and why can we understand those? The answer of God is not an answer.

(November 6, 2013 at 9:42 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(November 6, 2013 at 9:37 pm)Jesus is Lord Wrote: The Universe that we can measure and observe is one ruled by laws and order. The very smallest elements which we can study have ordered forms, and follow laws which allow us to predict many, though not all behaviors.

Okay.

(November 6, 2013 at 9:37 pm)Jesus is Lord Wrote: Order itself, law itself cannot exist on its own; it requires something of a higher order to give it.

How do you know this?

(November 6, 2013 at 9:37 pm)Jesus is Lord Wrote: A legal universe requires God for its origin.

IF premise one were true, why would this follow?
IF the conclusion were true, which god would it be, and how would we know?

If premise 1 is true it follows by necessary inference.
The conclusion's truth doesn't extend to "which" God.

Have you been away for a while? LTNS

(November 7, 2013 at 7:25 am)Lion IRC Wrote: If premise 1 is true it follows by necessary inference.
partial quote

Why?

(November 7, 2013 at 7:46 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote:

(November 7, 2013 at 7:25 am)Lion IRC Wrote: If premise 1 is true it follows by necessary inference.
partial quote

Why?

Because he said so.

(November 7, 2013 at 10:36 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote:

(November 7, 2013 at 7:46 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: Why?

Because he said so.

Because it is necessary to invent some condition that requires his sky daddy is more like it.