Why does "evidence" so often turn out to be an anecdote ending in an argument from ignorance?

(April 24, 2015 at 1:06 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote:

---

Yes I am. Einstein and others noticed a slight discrepancy and subsequently he formulated his theory of general relativity. The point is we observe ourselves in a universe that according to atheists came into existence without the benefit of a designer or engineer and

---

yet the universe operates unswervingly by laws of physics that are discoverable, are amenable to scientific inquiry and explicable in mathematical formulas, are uniform throughout the universe and make prediction and deduction possible.

---

Is this what anyone would expect or predict if our universe was the result of mindless mechanistic that didn't intend any specific thing to happen? Would it be surprising if a universe came into existence without the benefit of intelligence design or planning that it would be chaotic without any discernible laws of nature and hostile to scientific inquiry? I dare say it wouldn't be surprising but it would be what you'd expect from the source...

---

True, but only in places and at times where-the universe operates unswervingly by laws of physics that are discoverable, are amenable to scientific inquiry and explicable in mathematical formulas, are uniform throughout the universe and make prediction and deduction possible.

At other times and places the universe acts stochastically, chaotically, or even (though we can't really tell) probably randomly.
Unless you can show that the whole of the universe acts according to "physical law," you can only make supported statements about the part of the universe that you can show acts according to "physical law."  Extending this behavior to the parts not observable, is not empirically supportable.
You are amazed by the regularity of the tiny bit of the universe which you are amazed by....amazing.

(April 25, 2015 at 11:57 am)robvalue Wrote: You have evidence a personal agent is responsible for lightning? What does that mean? I'm starting to think you are messing with us.

You're talking about Thor? He is a swell guy. Sometimes he gets angry and... you know the rest.

Whether or not we can think of a model is irrelevant to whether your model is true.

You're right...that was a typo it was supposed to read

We have solid evidence a personal agent isn't directly responsible for lightening or hurricanes.

My bad...but you realized something was wrong.

(April 25, 2015 at 11:28 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: You're right...that was a typo it was supposed to read

We have solid evidence a personal agent isn't directly responsible for lightening or hurricanes.

My bad...but you realized something was wrong.

So let me ask you this: in the absence of evidence against a personal agent directing lightning, but existing in the same world we do now, where everything else functions via knowable natural processes, is it rational to believe that in just this one circumstance, a personal agent must be responsible, just because we don't have evidence against it and may not know how it works?

(April 25, 2015 at 12:30 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(April 25, 2015 at 11:53 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: Wait what!

What I believe is based on what can be proven.

The universe started by creator idea has no evidence for it, nor does it have any explanatory value, I mean how did the "creator" do it? what process did it use? where did it get it's materials? none of this is explained, it's just left at "god did it" and that's supposed to be satisfactory, it isn't.

You ask for ideas of where matter came from and propose none in its place. There are scientific theories which I know I have posted for you before but you have chosen to ignore on the subject of before the big bang so posting links again would just be a waste of my time.



 

That was supposed to read...

We have solid evidence a personal agent isn't directly responsible for lightening or hurricanes.

As I've written before, the notion there is no evidence, not one single fact that is simpatico or comports with the belief we owe our existence to a Creator is so imbedded into the thinking of atheists, so fundamental and core to atheist thought that most atheists will refuse to acknowledge there is evidence (which are simply facts in favor of a belief) that no argument will stop atheists from saying it. But I love a challenge.

As a hypothetical imagine there is no universe, no stars, no planets and no life, yet somehow we're able to have this conversation and I said I think a Creator caused the universe to exist you'd say what universe? The position there is no God or creator of the universe or life would be a slam dunk...there is no universe and there is no life. In other words the popular claim of atheists there is no evidence of a Creator would be true.

Now suppose a universe does exist but its utterly chaotic, there is no predictable or uniform behavior and scientific research is impossible but I said I believe an intelligent designer caused this chaotic universe to exist. I could point to the existence of the universe as evidence it was caused by a personal agent as opposed to impersonal forces and if no one knows how the universe came to be a Creator couldn't be ruled out. But you could point to the fact the universe was utterly chaotic with no apparent rhyme or reason to it as evidence it was the result of mechanistic forces. You would argue that is exactly what we expect if mindless forces was the source of the universe.

Now suppose we observe a universe that has discernible laws of physics that appear to govern how matter interacts and as a result the matter in the universe coalesces into stars that form into galaxies, that form into solar systems that cause planets to exist. Because of the laws of physics scientific research and inquiry, mathematical formulas, predictions and logical deduction are now doable. Furthermore through observation and study we also notice that not just any set of laws or characteristics will produce planets and stars. In fact we notice that even the strength of gravity falls in a narrow range that allows stars and galaxies to form. Then we notice that gravity alone won't hold galaxies together they just fly apart. We realize there is a huge amount of matter we can't detect but in order for galaxies to form it must be there as well. Again I say this universe was created by an intelligent being and I point to all the characteristics and laws of physics that cause the observed universe. However in this imaginary universe there is no life whatsoever. Not a spec not a molecule. You could still argue and say why would an intelligent being cause a sterile universe to exist? You'd say fine there are exacting characteristics that cause stars and planets to exist but so what? What would be the point of creating such a universe? You'd still have a good argument against the existence of a Creator but at this point you could no longer honestly say there is no evidence of a Creator (although you would still say that). The reason you'd still say that is because whether true or not its a great reason to decline a belief in something. Why should anyone believe in something minus any facts or data its true?

Now suppose we observe the same universe but on one planet we find not only life...but sentient life! We find beings capable of art, music and conducting science. There's a reason Downbeat so many people do believe in God but don't believe in Santa Claus or fairies. Its because they have a choice to subscribe to the belief that mindless, lifeless forces without plan or intent caused the universe to exist, caused the laws of physics and the characteristics of matter and subsequently unintentionally caused life and mind exist or they can subscribe to the belief that a fix was in, that all these conditions and laws of physics are the result of design and plan. The irony here is that the reason most folks don't believe we're the result of mindless lifeless is due to lack of evidence such could or did occur apart from plan and design. All kinds of superstitious beliefs have fallen by the wayside due to solid evidence of some other explanation. Its not because people willfully choose to be ignorant. Is it possible an intelligent being could cause a universe to exist? We're not sure about a real universe but intelligent humans can create virtual universe and they can 'play' god and fiddle with various characteristics and laws.

Having said all this I'm just going to humor you and agree...you're right there's no evidence we are the result of a Creator its all just wishful thinking...pats you on the head and tucks you in to bed....night night.

(April 26, 2015 at 12:48 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: As I've written before, the notion there is no evidence, not one single fact that is simpatico or comports with the belief we owe our existence to a Creator is so imbedded into the thinking of atheists,

But there is no evidence.

If there was such evidence, there would be no need for faith or atheism.

That much is logical and apparent.  

Stop being so fucking retarded.

You got nothin.

Embedded? Atheists? Baking powder?

There is no evidence. There's not even a coherent definition of what it is there's supposed to be evidence for. If God turned up and tweaked your nipples, you wouldn't have any frame of reference to know him from a super powered alien.

Slagging off atheists doesn't make this lack of evidence any more compelling. The only actual real thing religion has is a book. If you hadn't had it hammered into your head that this book is magically true, you'd disregard it just like any other work of fiction.

(April 26, 2015 at 12:48 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: As I've written before, the notion there is no evidence, not one single fact that is simpatico or comports with the belief we owe our existence to a Creator is so imbedded into the thinking of atheists, so fundamental and core to atheist thought that most atheists will refuse to acknowledge there is evidence (which are simply facts in favor of a belief) that no argument will stop atheists from saying it. But I love a challenge.

Perhaps your first challenge is to stop using that misrepresentation of the 'thinking of atheists,' since it allows you to dismiss arguments that might otherwise give you pause, and allows you to put forth poor arguments on the basis that their rejection is based on an ingrained bias instead of simply being a poor argument.  You'll never be able to filter out good points from bad ones if you presume that our points are wrong before we even make them.

And as I've written before, I have solid, irrefutable evidence that gods don't exist.