At note to everyone I have yet to respond to. This is a very busy time of year for me and I don't have a lot of free time now. But Ill eventually respond to all of your arguments
(November 5, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: It's laughably ridiculous now. The resemblance between an atom and a solar system is so superficial that it's very close to being entirely false. Clue: atoms don't really look like that, it's a gross oversimplification for the benefit of minds still in grade school.
http://physics.aps.org/story/v13/st15
Focus:"A tiny solar system after all"
http://www.dvice.com/archives/2012/01/sc...s_mode.php
Experiment shows how giant atoms act just like tiny solar systems
I did not say the comparison was identical, only that it proves fractals exist on every level we have observed, big and small. So the argument being made, which is size has no relevance to the potential existence of anything (including life) is still valid.
====
(November 5, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Your problem is that your mental scope is too narrow and limited in its ability to comprehend the vast gulf between what could possibly be true and what actually IS true. That gulf is bridged with evidence, not speculation.
Your analogy is backwards. It should read
"Your problem is that your mental scope is "too wide and broad" in its ability to comprehend the vast gulf between what could possibly be true and what actually IS true. That gulf is bridged with evidence, not speculation."
OK, so what your saying is you do not believe anything unless its "actually true" (verified by observation and testing), and anything that is speculation (has no observable empirical evidence) you reject.?. Therefore you must reject the use of logical inferences in science because inference is only evidence of a logical possibility and not empirically verified to be true.
I will refrain at this point from posting everything you believe -or must believe as an atheist/evolutionist- that has no actual testable evidence, until you affirm this position you claim. Then I will show you your hypocrisy.
====
(November 3, 2014 at 11:06 pm)IDScience Wrote: First, I don't need evidence for my claim for it to be rational.
(November 5, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Therefore, no evidence is needed for the contrary claim to be rational.
That statement is not rational. If one of X is proven to exist, its irrational to claim no more than one of X can exist. And if varying degrees of X do exist, its irrational to claim even more variations of X can not also exist.
If one of something exists -intelligent life for example- you must explain a cause to prevent other intelligent life from existing. And if varying degrees of intelligent life are proven to exist -which they are-, you must explain the cause why higher degrees of intelligence must cease at a particular arbitrarily defined level
Rejecting a wide variation of logically possible life forms before they are observable it not logical. So your position is, you must either accept the proposition superior intellects can logically exist, or reject the proposition superior intellects can logically exist. And since you clearly do not reject the proposition, you are then forced to explain the cause for the universal I.Q stagnation so that it can never reach a God-like status and contradict your atheism.
And the only person on this board that has even attempted to do this is Jenny A, and her argument (laws of physics) completely failed to prove a God-like I.Q. is logically impossible
Claiming there is no evidence for this God-like I.Q. it is identical to claiming there is no evidence for any intellectual superior life. You accept the alien possibility by faith through inference, yet you irrationally reject a God-like I.Q. on no other basis other than faith it does not exist/lack of faith it does exist.
===
(November 3, 2014 at 11:06 pm)IDScience Wrote: Just as the multiverse of inflationary cosmology and the “many worlds” of quantum physics do not need evidence of their existence to be a rational concept.
(November 5, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: The former definitely has evidence, which is the cause of it being accepted. The latter remains hypothetical pending evidence one way or another.
Please show me the evidence for other universes with different laws of physics, or other unseen dimensions of reality, I would love to see this evidence. And if you can't produce the empirical scientific evidence for either of them, which I know for a fact you cant, then admit you lied or believed misinformation before you studied it.
Note. I also believe in other dimensions, but I also fully understand I believe it by faith alone without any testable evidence
====
(November 3, 2014 at 11:06 pm)IDScience Wrote: If one universe exists, many or endless other universe all with different attributes/constants can also logically exist, and this is based solely on inference.
(November 5, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: The vast majority of things that can logically exist, don't.
Name them.
If something can logically exist, but does not exist, you must be able to empirically prove these logically possible things do not exist. This means you must have testable evidence for the "vast majority" of things that can logically exist, and also have evidence that they don't actually exist, for your statement to be valid
=====
(November 3, 2014 at 11:06 pm)IDScience Wrote: Life exists here, therefore life can exist elsewhere.
(November 5, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: That's true.
Now we enter the slippery slope of my incremental intelligence theorem
====
(November 3, 2014 at 11:06 pm)IDScience Wrote: Varying degrees of life with varying degrees of attributes and intellects exist here, therefore varying degrees of life with varying degrees of attributes and intellects is a logical possibility and can't be ruled out of existence
(November 5, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Which is why we don't rule them out of existence.
To the contrary, you do artificially apply limitations on the potential life forms that don't fit into you preconceived belief of atheism/lack of belief in theism. So you are lying, you do rule them out if they come too close to appearing God-like. And you do this for no other reason other than your atheistic philosophy forces you to apply these arbitrary limitations on universal I.Q. levels
===
(November 3, 2014 at 11:06 pm)IDScience Wrote: If we find an statue of an elephant on mars, do I need observable evidence of the potential designer or the design process to assume a designer could exist?. No I do not.
(November 5, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: You should at least eliminate erosion as an explanation. Tool marks would be a good thing to have before you conclude design. You like logical possibilities so much, you should know that erosion resulting in something looking like a statue of an elephant is a logical possibility. It's a possibility that could probably be eliminated if the statue really is an artifact of intelligence.
And what are the chances that erosion would create a statue of an elephant, vs the chances it was designed by an intelligence?. This is the problem with the skeptical mind (atheist Popper was a skeptic, and he established falsification as a rule). The skeptical mind looks for reasons to reject the logically obvious (logical positivism) in order to be able to prove it false, instead of accepting the duck might actually be what it appears to be. And if it isn't capable of being proven false, it is (supposed to be) rejected by science, which is illogical at its core because unfalsifiable things can be true
All of quantum physics would have been rejected 200 years ago based on the falsifiability criteria
======
(November 3, 2014 at 11:06 pm)IDScience Wrote: And proving the existence of the elephants designer is unfalsifiable, yet ID is not rejected based on logical inferences of design.
(November 5, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: If there are tool marks, the nonID hypothesis will have been falsified.
Incorrect, erosion could have created marks to look like tool marks, just as you believe random mutations and selection created molecular machines to look like our machines. And how do you know what tools were even used?, they could have been water blasting tools and gave the appearance of erosion.
The only thing that can falsify ID of the elephant statue is to prove a designer does not exist, or has never existed in the past, which is impossible to do (Just like God) . Maybe this will open your mind to the absurdity of falsification as an all encompassing rule
(November 3, 2014 at 11:06 pm)IDScience Wrote: Did I say that?. No. I said because its logically possible, it can't be rejected as atheism does.
(November 5, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: That's not what atheism does. Atheism doesn't do anything. It's the state of not holding any beliefs that any gods are real.
Therefore atheism holds a belief that Gods are not real, so atheism does do something. You still cant understand, by not holding a belief X,Y&Z are real, you hold the belief X,Y&Z are not real
I don't believe a monster is under the bridge, also means I believe there is not a monster under the bridge. This does not mean there could not be a monster under the bridge, only that I have fully evaluated the proposition being made, and have concluded
A. I believe (not know) there is not a monster under the bridge
B.Do not believe there is a monster under the bridge.
Both statements come to the exact same conclusion hence are indistinguishable in meaning
And because this analogy works in 100% of all other true dichotomies (Spaghetti monsters, multiverse, etc.) this proves the atheist mind is different from all other minds, because I have found its only the atheist that does not understand or admit the semantics of this true dichotomy of Gods existence/non-existence, and this maybe contributing to why they are atheists.
Virtually all atheist I have debated are confused on understanding belief vs knowledge when it comes to the dichotomy of "does God exist or not exist"
=====
(November 5, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: It's logically possible that there is no God. By your reasoning that means it is illogical to reject that proposition. The problem isn't with logic itself though, but your misuse of it.
No its not "logically possible", logic cant reject superior God-like life from existing. Rejecting God is philosophically possible (via your imagination), but not logically possible. Many philosophers don't use logic and critical thought as a framework for their philosophical arguments.
For example the atheist philosophers in science have established cell evolution in a primordial soup is true, not based on the evidence for it, but based on a lack of evidence for a designers existence, even though they admit the blatant appearance of design (via logical positivism). So I have little respect for philosophy without the rules of logic as a framework
===
(November 5, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: A god-like intelligence? It's theoretically possible, which doesn't mean that it's actually possible. I expect it is, though. It's not within the normal bounds of theism, you'll be hard-pressed to find another theist who considers advanced aliens to be gods.
It appears you have adopted the Hollywood interpretation of alien. An alien is any life form not indigenous to planet earth. An alien does not define form, size, intellect, attributes etc.., it only defines where you have not originated from. i.e. earth.
So if the existence of a God-like intelligence is theoretically possible (possibly true) , this also means the non-existence of a God-like intelligence is theoretically impossible (possibly false), which renders atheism an arbitrary philosophical position that rejects a logical possibility based on what is not known rather than what is known, thus renders atheists subjective philosophers and not objective critical thinkers
====
(November 5, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: A wide range CAN exist and probably does. A superhuman intelligence might exist. That wouldn't make it God. We'll probably have superhuman intelligences at our beck and call in thirty years (unless that goes horribly wrong). Mere intelligence doesn't make something worthy of worship.
Back to the slippery slope we go.
Now I want you to explain at what point does an intelligence become "a God"?. If an intellect capable of creating a universe and all life in it existed, but was found to have limitations (albeit limitations beyond your comprehension) would you reject him as God because he was not infinitely intelligent?
To qualify as God only means a life form must be capable of creating the universe with the proprieties to sustain life, and create all life in the universe. If that being does exists, he is in fact God under the proper definition.
But also according to my religion, there were Angels that also did not think their creator was worthy to be worshiped or to be obeyed, so their creator holds the option to negate their eternal life, just as a PC programer can delete his program, God can permanently delete you for not obeying
The creator (if he exited) deserves worship not because he is infinite and unlimited in power, but because all pleasures in life can not possibly exist without him, thus proper homage is due for your own existence because you would not exist without him. And because you have no inherit right to exist in the first place, in order to continue to exist you must follow the rules of the creator, like them or not.
Just as you hold the right to reject worshiping and obeying your creator, your creator also holds the right to reject your eternal life. The choice is yours to make
====
(November 5, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Merely creating a universe doesn't either, btw. Here's a couple of scenarios for a non-god intelligent creator: a technician at a supercollider creates a universe by accident. A physicist at a supercollider creates a universe on purpose. A programmer presses the 'simulate universe' app on a smart phone 300 years from now. It's hard to think of any being that creates a universe using a apparatus as a god in the sense meant by deists and theists.
They are not actually creating a universe ex nihilo, they are reproducing a universe from a copy that already exists, not the same thing. I believe my creator is incomprehensibly superior to me, but even if his superiority was comprehensible, I would still worship him because I do not exist without him, thus he deserves proper respect for everything I enjoy in life. My very existence relies on his existence
