(December 7, 2014 at 6:01 pm)Rarthyr500 Wrote:

(December 7, 2014 at 5:58 pm)Quantum1Connect Wrote: When did I ever assert that the term "God" was exclusive to Christianity? I simply took the OP into context, knowing it takes place out of Oklahoma, and replied likewise. Unless the OP has only non-christian friends, culturally I would not know that.

Second, did you not read the second half of my post? I am increasingly apathetic.

You, sir, are arguing against something that simply does not exists.

I think you have assumed so many things before asking the appropriate questions. My goodness, that certainly escalated quickly.

Alright, I need to calm myself down now hahaha. So you're a good guy? I need to sleep been on the computer too much. You're right though I need to pay more attention to people and their own intelligent views! Sorry man.

Haha. You should see some of my other posts. I'm not as angry as I used to be. That's just the ultimate point to my last post. But this site serves as a good place to vent about the frustrations of living in a primarily theistic world.

(December 7, 2014 at 5:13 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(December 7, 2014 at 3:23 pm)LostLocke Wrote: The 5th way? Let's see....

"The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance."

BZZZZT. First point was wrong right off the bat.

Your response only shows that you have not studied the argument before presenting a strawman of it. The fifth way is not a design argument as modernly understood. Common experience shows that efficient causes are directed towards specific sets of results and not just any random effects.

It's not a straw man.
Causes, efficient or not, don't work 'towards a goal'. Causes just happen.

I would rather be an angry atheist than a complacent one.

(December 7, 2014 at 8:38 pm)LostLocke Wrote:

(December 7, 2014 at 5:13 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Your response only shows that you have not studied the argument before presenting a strawman of it. The fifth way is not a design argument as modernly understood. Common experience shows that efficient causes are directed towards specific sets of results and not just any random effects.

It's not a straw man.
Causes, efficient or not, don't work 'towards a goal'. Causes just happen.

Exactly. All teleological arguments make the obvious face-palming error of begging the question; that accumulative changes resulting in higher levels of order and subsequent intelligent systems presume intentionality and conscious design is the very point to be demonstrated.

(December 7, 2014 at 8:38 pm)LostLocke Wrote: Causes, efficient or not, don't work 'towards a goal'. Causes just happen.

So you're going to just assert that the regularity with which specific effects follow from specific causes happen for no reason at all, a brute fact that requires no justification for that belief. Of course past experience demostrates such regularities in nature, which is the fact to be explained. How do you explain it?

(December 8, 2014 at 9:57 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(December 7, 2014 at 8:38 pm)LostLocke Wrote: Causes, efficient or not, don't work 'towards a goal'. Causes just happen.

So you're going to just assert that the regularity with which specific effects follow from specific causes happen for no reason at all, a brute fact that requires no justification for that belief. Of course past experience demostrates such regularities in nature, which is the fact to be explained. How do you explain it?

OK, just so we're on the same page, just give me one basic example.

(December 8, 2014 at 9:57 am)ChadWooters Wrote: So you're going to just assert that the regularity with which specific effects follow from specific causes happen for no reason at all, a brute fact that requires no justification for that belief. Of course past experience demostrates such regularities in nature, which is the fact to be explained. How do you explain it?

That's just it, no one asserts that they just happen. They follow natural laws whose origins are uncertain and show absolutely no evidence of being the result of some greater intelligence. As was pointed out, you're begging the question by claiming that they must be the result of an intelligence and also creating a false dichotomy by assuming that they must be the result of an intelligence or happen for no reason at all.

(December 8, 2014 at 2:47 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: ...accumulative changes resulting in higher levels of order and subsequent intelligent systems presume intentionality and conscious design is the very point to be demonstrated.

Aquinas does not use the fifth way to explain high order levels of order, i.e. apparent design. The 5th way grounds Aristotelian final causes, at all levels of reality, in intelligent agency. Complex intentionality is possible at the higher degrees of reality precisely because it is already present more fundamentally. The common experience to be explained is why changes occur in particular ways and not in randomly.

Now, the regularity of nature is either a contingent or necessary fact. If it is necessary then no further explanation is required. If it is a contingent must be explained by that which is necessary or a series of contingencies that lead back to a necessity. Since knowledge based on induction is by its nature contingent, it is proper to seek that which makes our world intelligible.

Anyone can see from common experience (induction) that reality holds together in an intelligible way. When people take this induced knowledge for granted they quickly fall into the absurdity trap of occasionalism when they try to defend it. Even most occasionalists still tacitly believe that something holds causality together, even if they think that something itself remains unintelligible. Those, like me, who believe the universe is actually intelligible, say that something necessary serves as the ground for the regularities of efficient cause. Either way, occationalist or otherwise, there must be something. All that remains is to give that something a name. Hmmm…

(December 6, 2014 at 12:21 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(December 6, 2014 at 11:52 am)Natachan Wrote: And I'm generally not an angry atheist. I love christmas. I like Easter. If you privately want a religious celebration on your personal property, or on church property, great! Go for it! I'm just sick of public officials subtly implying that to be a proper american I have to follow their beliefs.

To be a proper american do you have to celebrate MLK day? I'm sure the KKK types are sick of public official implying that you do. To be a proper american do you have to celebrate Columbus Day? I'm sure some Native Americans types are sick of public officials implying that you do. To be a proper American do you have to eat turkey on Thanksgiving? I'm sure the vegan types are sick of public officials implying that you do. If American society should be sterilized of its religious/cultural heritage for the benefit of a fringe group like atheists....why shouldn't it be sterilized of other cultural beliefs for the sake of the other fringe groups?

ok I'm 100% sure Heywood posted this exact same post in another thread. Which one was it again???? Hey heywood are u so much of troll that you just copy and paste prewritten arguments?

Anthropic fallacy is in play.