So your an Athiest

[Mr.wizard]

"Naturalism of the gaps" - oh, great masturbating Kreist on a rotating dildo! We don't claim we "know" that there was no designer, only that we doubt it for a very good reason: there is no better reason to believe that idea than the unfounded claims which shitheads persistently make! AAA cannot prove his claim, and now he tries to discredit us for saying we don't know when in fact we don't!

I'd say I've had enough of AAA's mental masturbation in this thread and quit already, but I think this is the stuff for a new law, along the line of Godwin's: The longer one attempts to prove a claim which is unfalsifiable to those who examine it through reason, the more likely he is to resort to insulting dishonesty in a desperate attempt to go on believing it himself.

What should this law be called?

I give up as well.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

No we don't, that is completely false. How the hell would not plugging a god into things we don't know be a "naturalism of the gaps", the honest response when you don't know something is to say, "I don't know" its not to plug in a magic god that you have given all the attributes to in order to answer the question. These arguments your making are completely played out and fallacious, I mean really buddy, God of the Gaps, Watchmaker, Argument from Ignorance, go an and get some new material.

Since you are so great recognizing design, then answer me this, what would a non-designed universe look like?

We do have the ability to recognize features of design, because we have a history of seeing the causal relationship between intelligence and information/design. We then see information around us. The logical conclusion based on our historical observations of the cause of information should lead us to conclude that intelligence played a role in its origin. You can use your presuppositions of the irrationality of a designer to deny it, but you are disagreeing with a fundamental logical inference from historical science. I don't understand why you can't grasp that. All you have done is say that I am arguing from illogical arguments. But you answer me this question: Why is it illogical to assume intelligent cause to the origin of biological information when naturalistic explanations fall short? Why do I have to wait for a naturalistic explanation when there is no reason for me to think that one will arise? You are arguing from a fallible argument in the fact that you are assuming you have the correct answer right off the bat. Your idea seems to be: because we know that life arose from naturalistic processes, it is illogical to insert God in the places that we don't know the answer to yet.

Also a non-designed universe would likely be either an infinitesimally small region of matter that could not lead to the formation of planets. Or it would be expanding so rapidly that gravity would be insufficient force to lead to the formation of planets. There constants of the universe would not be set at the extremely precise values that they would need to be to lead to the formations of planets.

Oh...BLAAAAM, you got us! Argue from history, specifically on what does not apply because it applies only to the products of intelligence which have been produced in the top-down fashion - oh, how can any science believer argue with that? Hmmm...well, there's the fact that observed life forms show absolutely no evidence of top-down design!

AAA, you really do have a soul, which is just another word to combine "mind", the poetic "heart", and more importantly "character", and this thread is not good for it because there is no arguable virtue recognized among communities of the human animal in dishonesty. You wander only further from honesty, crossing the line over to insult and outright lies the more you attempt to support unsupportable ideas in your attempt to avoid dealing with the truth which scares you (although in truth what you're doing now is about as scary as it gets).

[AAA]

We do have the ability to recognize features of design, because we have a history of seeing the causal relationship between intelligence and information/design. We then see information around us. The logical conclusion based on our historical observations of the cause of information should lead us to conclude that intelligence played a role in its origin. You can use your presuppositions of the irrationality of a designer to deny it, but you are disagreeing with a fundamental logical inference from historical science. I don't understand why you can't grasp that. All you have done is say that I am arguing from illogical arguments. But you answer me this question: Why is it illogical to assume intelligent cause to the origin of biological information when naturalistic explanations fall short? Why do I have to wait for a naturalistic explanation when there is no reason for me to think that one will arise? You are arguing from a fallible argument in the fact that you are assuming you have the correct answer right off the bat. Your idea seems to be: because we know that life arose from naturalistic processes, it is illogical to insert God in the places that we don't know the answer to yet.

Also a non-designed universe would likely be either an infinitesimally small region of matter that could not lead to the formation of planets. Or it would be expanding so rapidly that gravity would be insufficient force to lead to the formation of planets. There constants of the universe would not be set at the extremely precise values that they would need to be to lead to the formations of planets.

Oh...BLAAAAM, you got us! Argue from history, specifically on what does not apply because it applies only to the products of intelligence which have been produced in the top-down fashion - oh, how can any science believer argue with that? Hmmm...well, there's the fact that observed life forms show absolutely no evidence of top-down design!

AAA, you really do have a soul, which is just another word to combine "mind", the poetic "heart", and more importantly "character", and this thread is not good for it because there is no arguable virtue recognized among communities of the human animal in dishonesty. You wander only further from honesty, crossing the line over to insult and outright lies the more you attempt to support unsupportable ideas in your attempt to avoid dealing with the truth which scares you (although in truth what you're doing now is about as scary as it gets).

This will be my last response on this page, because I'm sick of us arguing in circles and not getting anywhere. I don't know that we were produced by an intelligence, but I think that it is a better explanation for the design (which all cases of design where we know the origin proceeds from intelligence) that we see. Until better evidence can reasonably explain a bottom up process that leads to information and increasing complexity, my default position is that the intelligent information had an intelligent designer. You say that life forms show absolutely no evidence of top-down design. That is just a misinformed assertion with no basis in the facts. It shows plenty of evidence of design with complex interplay, and you really have to stretch the theory of evolution to account for their interactivity. Our genome seems to be decreasing in function as time goes on which is more consistent with a top-down design than a bottom up design. Thanks for putting up with my thoughts, and please look at the scientific evidence objectively and keep an open mind. I will try to do the same.

[paulpablo]

I don't claim personal appeals, or quote holy books. But I believe, and also believe Athiests are driven to their beliefs firstly by rejecting God. Not that theres anything wrong with that. Whether evolution is factual or not does not interest me. I was raised Christian, have altered what I believe, and am looking for Athiests to be honest how they arrived at what they believe.

I've come to believe that religions are myths from comparatively looking at religions, cults and cultures around the world.

Combined with a bit of knowledge about biology and things of that nature.

So there might be a God, but I've seen no evidence for it and I can't do anything about it.

Even if I try and deal with the situation tactically and if I assume there is one god but I don't know which of these ancient fairy tales is actually true, it seems that god is more offended if you worship the wrong god rather than worshipping no god and it would still probably be preferable to worship none.

[The Valkyrie]

So, I'm still an atheist...


...but not an athiest.

[Whateverist]

I'll tell you some evidence right now. Information rich sequences in each and every one of us. Universe with precise qualities that allow it to support life. complexity of life that humans can't match. If you don't at least look into these evidences for yourself, I think you are going to be without excuse.

There it is, the veiled threat. Now we need excuses for not believing unsubstantiated bullshit? I think I'm willing to take my chances.

[abaris]

What drives one to Atheism, or perhaps evolution.

I only saw that thread now. What drives one is the wrong question. The only thing turning you into an atheist is not believing the tales written in any of the holy books. There's no drive behind it, only reality not computing with the supernatural.

It starts with a universe packing around 13 billion years and an earth being 4,5 billion years old. If you accept that, you have no choice but to discard any humanocentric god.

[Esquilax]

This will be my last response on this page, because I'm sick of us arguing in circles and not getting anywhere. I don't know that we were produced by an intelligence, but I think that it is a better explanation for the design (which all cases of design where we know the origin proceeds from intelligence) that we see. 

So, I've only just gotten to this thread, but how exactly did you determine that you see design within biological life? Because when I look at life, with all its redundancies, downright flaws, and issues with obvious resolutions, I don't see design. I see exactly what we would expect if life evolved due to processes that had no concept of the comfort and functionality of the organisms that result, only that they survive.

And frankly, that is a better explanation than intelligence anyway, since it's not only readily demonstrable, it also requires less unjustified assumptions. Why make the additional step of assuming intelligence without positive evidence for one, just because you have things that one might intuitively suspect leads to design?

Until better evidence can reasonably explain a bottom up process that leads to information and increasing complexity, my default position is that the intelligent information had an intelligent designer.

That's called "evolution," it has over a century of peer reviewed scientific consensus and evidence that has only ever confirmed or strengthened it, and explains all those things. Incidentally, how are you defining information?

And you are aware that "until someone provides a better answer I'm going with this one," is an argument from ignorance, yes?

You say that life forms show absolutely no evidence of top-down design. That is just a misinformed assertion with no basis in the facts. It shows plenty of evidence of design with complex interplay, and you really have to stretch the theory of evolution to account for their interactivity.

Not only is complexity not an indicator of design- intelligent designers strive for simplicity, not a whole bunch of moving parts- but complex interplay is easily encompassed within evolutionary theory: the things that each organism interacts with exist within their environment, they were always a part of the natural selection pressures involved in the evolution of that organism. They interact because they evolved around each other.

Our genome seems to be decreasing in function as time goes on which is more consistent with a top-down design than a bottom up design.

What makes you say that? No, seriously, you've given no reason at all why you think that.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Oh...BLAAAAM, you got us! Argue from history, specifically on what does not apply because it applies only to the products of intelligence which have been produced in the top-down fashion - oh, how can any science believer argue with that? Hmmm...well, there's the fact that observed life forms show absolutely no evidence of top-down design!

AAA, you really do have a soul, which is just another word to combine "mind", the poetic "heart", and more importantly "character", and this thread is not good for it because there is no arguable virtue recognized among communities of the human animal in dishonesty. You wander only further from honesty, crossing the line over to insult and outright lies the more you attempt to support unsupportable ideas in your attempt to avoid dealing with the truth which scares you (although in truth what you're doing now is about as scary as it gets).

This will be my last response on this page, because I'm sick of us arguing in circles and not getting anywhere. I don't know that we were produced by an intelligence, but I think that it is a better explanation for the design (which all cases of design where we know the origin proceeds from intelligence) that we see. Until better evidence can reasonably explain a bottom up process that leads to information and increasing complexity, my default position is that the intelligent information had an intelligent designer. You say that life forms show absolutely no evidence of top-down design. That is just a misinformed assertion with no basis in the facts. It shows plenty of evidence of design with complex interplay, and you really have to stretch the theory of evolution to account for their interactivity. Our genome seems to be decreasing in function as time goes on which is more consistent with a top-down design than a bottom up design. Thanks for putting up with my thoughts, and please look at the scientific evidence objectively and keep an open mind. I will try to do the same.

You contradict yourself here by saying you don't "know" we are a product of intelligence, while insisting that a design exists. You can't have it both ways - if there is a design, then there must be an intelligence behind it! The problem is that there really is no evidence for a design, and the world will probably never see such evidence, no matter how you insist there is. Mix certain elements and compounds together, and the result can have properties unlike any of the components that went into it. We don't know precisely why this happens, but scientists don't jump to conclusions - this is not evidence of design, nor is the far greater complexity of form which evolved and eventually became self-aware over 4.5 billion years. There is no direct evidence that it started by accident, but the fossil record makes it very clear that it began much simpler than you can imagine, and simple enough that it probably was an accident of physical chemistry. This would set up the machine that went on ticking away, producing new information each time another accident occured and continued onward. It's the simplest explanation, which is usually the best one.

What a complicated existence you theists lead, when you have something to prove which you should know you never will. What can be asserted without evidence really can be dismissed without evidence!

[AAA]

This will be my last response on this page, because I'm sick of us arguing in circles and not getting anywhere. I don't know that we were produced by an intelligence, but I think that it is a better explanation for the design (which all cases of design where we know the origin proceeds from intelligence) that we see. 

So, I've only just gotten to this thread, but how exactly did you determine that you see design within biological life? Because when I look at life, with all its redundancies, downright flaws, and issues with obvious resolutions, I don't see design. I see exactly what we would expect if life evolved due to processes that had no concept of the comfort and functionality of the organisms that result, only that they survive.

And frankly, that is a better explanation than intelligence anyway, since it's not only readily demonstrable, it also requires less unjustified assumptions. Why make the additional step of assuming intelligence without positive evidence for one, just because you have things that one might intuitively suspect leads to design?

Until better evidence can reasonably explain a bottom up process that leads to information and increasing complexity, my default position is that the intelligent information had an intelligent designer.

That's called "evolution," it has over a century of peer reviewed scientific consensus and evidence that has only ever confirmed or strengthened it, and explains all those things. Incidentally, how are you defining information?

And you are aware that "until someone provides a better answer I'm going with this one," is an argument from ignorance, yes?

You say that life forms show absolutely no evidence of top-down design. That is just a misinformed assertion with no basis in the facts. It shows plenty of evidence of design with complex interplay, and you really have to stretch the theory of evolution to account for their interactivity.

Not only is complexity not an indicator of design- intelligent designers strive for simplicity, not a whole bunch of moving parts- but complex interplay is easily encompassed within evolutionary theory: the things that each organism interacts with exist within their environment, they were always a part of the natural selection pressures involved in the evolution of that organism. They interact because they evolved around each other.

Our genome seems to be decreasing in function as time goes on which is more consistent with a top-down design than a bottom up design.

What makes you say that? No, seriously, you've given no reason at all why you think that.

Uhhg, I really wanted to end the discussion. Virtually everything in your post has already come up, and I have already answered them. (apparently not well, because the same issues keep recirculating). The reason there seem to be a lot of assertions in my last post were because it was meant to be a summary of many of the other posts I have given, which I believe do use evidence to back them.

You say that life doesn't reflect intelligent design. Flaws in what way? You say you think life reflects what you would expect to see if the only thing being acted upon was the organisms ability to survive, yet life has many features that go beyond the basics of survival and reproduction.  Life has tremendous complexity and amazing specifically functioning systems in the cell: the communication via signal transduction pathways, genes regulating other genes (try to explain that one with evolution), and molecular machines that are necessary but not sufficient for life. Evolution explains the addition of new genetic information poorly. Point mutations are so infrequent that to expect them to compile themselves in the necessary order to form a new gene without at any point crippling the organism's ability to survive is unrealistic. Other forms of mutation such as recombination events are still not adding new information, they are just rearranging and modifying pre-existing information. Gene duplication events do produce additional bases, but again the duplicated protein has to change slowly across generations to develop a new function without crippling the organism. And until it got a new function, it would be under no selective pressure to keep it functional. I do not think that randomly altering information is a process capable of improving the information content of that system. I hear (I know this isn't credible info since I haven't personally done it) that genetic algorithms used to test the models do not support its viability unless you make some of the variables unrealistic. Evolution is not readily demonstrable, and to say that it is so is spreading ignorance. Sure changes occur, but point me to one increase in complexity. I think the genome is decreasing in functionality because virtually all diseases are the result of mutations arising in protein coding sequences of the genome resulting in a defective genome. Diseases are increasing in the population (partially due to poor lifestyle, but also due to defective alleles becoming more common). 

I'll attempt to define biological information: Irregular sequential organization of monomers, that have no chemical preference for their order, that exist in a way that allows them to accomplish a complex set of goals.