'Seeking' God

[Captain Scarlet]

When you remove all other considerations, there are only two possible answers to the question, "was the universe deliberately created?". That's 50/50.

Only according to you lucent and you have offered no reasoning nor evidence and as such your claims can be dismissed.

It's a logical proof, perhaps you're familiar with logic? 95 percent chance is a number pulled out of hat, there is no basis for that figure, and the illogic of being arising from non being shouldn't even have to be mentioned. Math has demonstrated all sorts of theories that weren't actually true, and this particular one is contridictory to reason.

Not as familiar with it as you lucent, given the strawmans you have erected, the bare assertions and appeal to belief, ignorance and incredulity. It's a mathematical proof and your argument that godidit has nothing at all to commend it, other than a gigantic appeal to incredulity: "I can't imagine how it could be any other way..therefore godidit". Please advance your reasoning or evidence we are all ears.

Either you have an eternal first cause, or an infinite regress of causes. Since time space matter and energy had an absolute beginning, the cause must be timeless, immaterial and transcendent.

The big bang certainly does not underwrite the universe having an absolute beginning and WLC et al deliberately misrepresents this in the Kalam. No one knows what happened before Planck time and to try to pretend you do, does not add force to your case. Its a bifurcation fallacy to present such a case. The universe may be eternal, or may asymptote to a beginning but never reach one, or some other 'start' that we can't comprehend yet. However you just rush in there saying the universe has a beginning and godidit; not terribly convincing. In addition to assert that everything that begins to exist is caused is a compositional error when applied to the universe as a whole. WLC then over overreaches himself (as you have done) stating that the cause must be timeless, immaterial transcendent (oh and you missed one personal). He gives his reasoning but he really can't bridge the gap between a cause and a god without resorting to bare assertion and non cognitivism. However he should be applauded for a very creditable attempt and sophisticated argument for the existence of a god. It is a well thought out but ultimately flawed argument.

The question isn't what is information, because we already know what information is, and where it comes from. The question is, does DNA fit into any known categories of things that contains information?...snip

Since DNA qualifies as both a code and a language...snip

You brought information up not me. Retract that line of argument by all means, its embarrassing. Seeing as you again want to argue from incredulity, that despite that vast amount of research proving you wrong (one presumes by bigoted scientists) can you 1) advance one well grounded argument from Intelligent Design (the eye, blood clotting cascade and bacterial flagellum have already been bunked btw), then 2) explain why that has superior explanatory power to natural selection or even the Lemarkian perspective as to why evolution occurred and 3) as science has a practical application given it's predictive qualities (yes evolution does too) name one practical application of the Intelligent Design conjecture.

This is an argument? This is you stating your personal beliefs as fact and offering conclusions based on those beliefs which are not supported by a logically coherent argument. Please give me something to work with.

Let's not be dishonest Lucent I clearly said in my response that I have given this in another thread, in a response to you. Don't try and score silly points by grandstanding "oh your just asserting that". It's silly school playground stuff not fitting of a debate. So I'll re-present it for you:
1 There are three attributes of existents, these being:
A Primary Attributes
B Secondary Attributes
C Relational Attributes.
2 B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant’s A in order to be considered meaningful.
3 The term “God” has positively identified B (omni qualities) but lacks a positively identified A.
4 Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)
5 However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.
6 Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)

Your premise that supernatural effects can only be deduced by humans without unlimited knowledge is false. Limited beings can deduce such effects by information given to them by the Creator.

Your rejoinder just begs the question and then also appeals to belief. It is therefore a faulty response, but you would know that given your knowledge of logic, wouldn't you?

Premise one is false, Divine Creation does not assume any such thing. Divine Creation is instantaneous and timeless.

It's a bare assertion fallacy to respond as such. Plus and perhaps worse still you are advocating a whole new form of causation. You have already advanced the argument that the Universe has a cause above, now your saying it's timeless and instantaneous. As you will be aware all causation requires time in that an effect is always has an antecedent cause. So now you need to sketch out for us how this new 'causation' model works. Again all ears, make your argument. At the moment your rejoinder fails.