Esquilax,Quote:If you're not responding to hypotheticals then isn't the conversation sort of over? I mean, you claim that the universe is set up in a narrow band of life supporting circumstances, but now you're saying you're not accepting any suggestion that things might be different because things aren't different. But that's a huge presupposition on it's own, because you can't say with any certainty that there is a narrow band to begin with. Like it or not, this conversation exists in hypotheticals; if you're just not accepting them then all you're really doing is shaking your head at the entire opposing viewpoint for no reason other than your own assumptions that things couldn't possibly be any different.
The only hypotheitical or postulate is whether the universe and our existence is the result of a transcendent personal agent who designed and caused the universe to exist or whether our existence and the universe is the result of mindless forces that didn't plan, engineer or intend our existence. The way you argue a case is to present facts that support your hypothesis. The problem with most theist-atheist debates is they inject other hypotheiticals into the mix so what you wind up with is offering speculative theories in favor of a speculative theory. I'm attempting to avoid that mess by limiting lines of evidence to well established facts, then argue from those facts why I think its evidence in favor of my hypothesis. The other side can offer rebuttals to any evidence offered and why they think it doesn't favor the hypothesis. They can also offer well established facts in favor of their position.
It isn't an established fact the constants had to be what they are due to some unknown law or if the constants arbritrarily took on the values we observe. What we do know and what is a fact that the constants do have to be within an extremely small degree of what they are for life as we know it to exist. This is not a hypothetical, it's a fact supported by knowledge that if they weren't what we observe them to be in some cases to a mindnumbing degree of exacting tolerance human life wouldn't exist and in some cases it could be argued no life would exist. I argue from that fact it is evidence of design and plan. Of course those who hold with atheism will argue anyway you can that this is meaningless, doesn't indicate design and so forth. But the merit of our respective arguments is properly decided by those who are impartial and undecided about this issue, not those arguing in favor of a certain position. That would be like going to court, arguing a case yet you can only win if your opponent agree's with you...fat chance of that happening.
Quote:No, sorry. You're wrong. Let me see if I can put this another way: I'm not saying there's no god. I'm saying I don't believe in your god, because you haven't proved it.
My God is the God of theism.
the·ism
[thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism ).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism )
Your atheism is to my theism. Notice how atheists only get the 'a' in front of it meaning not or without. For example the word asexual means reproduction without or not with sex. Atheists believe in the existence of the universe without or not with God.
God is defined as
God
[god] Show IPA
noun
1.
the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
If this isn't the God you don't believe exists then you have so basterdized the word atheism that it no longer means anything except what you want it to mean.
Quote:You're an atheist too, you know; when it comes to Zeus and Athena and all those other defunct gods you hold exactly the same position that I do. Does it then follow that you're saying those gods could never have existed? Do you have a burden of proof to show us that they are nonexistent?
Yet another in an endless series of semantical arguments put forth by confused atheists. The God of theism isn't a specific God of any religion. It is belief in the existence of God, Supreme Being, Creator and ruler of the universe.
Quote:The question of whether or not there's a designer isn't core to the atheist belief system;
Perhaps not according to you because you seem quite confused about what you think. If I were to ask atheists if they believe the universe was designed and engineered by a transcendent agent of great power the overwhelming majority would reject that notion...that's why there atheists. By the way, I'm not suggesting either point of view can be proved, but what I can do is show good reason and evidence as to why I believe we are the result of a transcendent agent of great power.
Quote: it's "I don't know whether or not there is a designer, nor the extent to which such a being conforms to the persona detailed in earthly religious texts."
Thats closer to an agnostic position.
Quote:No, I wouldn't find it compelling but then again I don't know of any atheist that's making that claim. Why not just stop at the "I haven't a clue" part and then add "but let's keep looking."
It would be very refreshing if atheists did confess to ignorance on the subject and claimed to not have a clue as to whether God exists or not. But that's not what the majority of atheists do. I can show you site after site where atheists equate the existence of God on the same par as the existence of Santa Clause, Tooth Faires, Green Goblins and Invisible Pink elephants. I can show you another site that declares the non-existence of God is as scientifically proven as the non-existence of life on the moon. Of course if you take them to task they'll launch yet another semantical argument about how you can't prove a negative.
Quote:Look above, I already admitted that there might be a designer. That doesn't threaten my atheism, either. But my admitting that possibility doesn't mean I believe it unreservedly, nor does it mean that you've escaped the burden of proof regarding not only the existence of such a designer, but the identity of it too. What if that designer was Cthulhu?
You're not just a weak atheist...you're a tepid atheist. From what you say, woudn't it be more accurate to put Religious Views ?????? rather than atheist?
Quote:What I'm saying is, this question of random chance and low probabilities is moot, because if we are all here by chance, our existences aren't in question. No matter how low the chance might have been, if there was a random element at all, it definitely happened.
Fine, and people can decide for themselves whether our existence is due to the most fortioutious stroke of luck and act of serendipity imaginable or whether it happened because it was designed and engineered to happen.
Quote:No. We recognize design by contrasting it with other examples of design. We know the pyramids are designed because we can look at other monuments or buildings. We can find evidence that they were designed.
And what is it about buildings or momunments that tells us they were created by design and engineering?
Quote:This argument falls apart when you consider all the magnificently low probability things that exist in nature; think of the Tessellating Pavement in my home state of Tasmania. It's a perfectly geometric patch of ground, and yet it wasn't designed, it just looks like it. It is, in fact, perfectly natural. Hell, just look at all the celestial bodies out there that look like other things to us when we see them through a telescope; all those are random too, while looking designed.
I remember a shadow on Mars looked like Pee Wee Herman but even if so, I doubt that was any sign of intelligence. http://atheistforums.org/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
