RE: The Case for Theism
April 1, 2013 at 8:22 pm
(This post was last modified: April 1, 2013 at 8:39 pm by Drew_2013.)
Since you're actually attempting to make a case for what you believe I'll respond to your post.
Pardon me did I mistakenly lead you to believe I give a rats ass if think I've made a case or not? In case there was any ambiguity I don't care what your opinion is. I'm responding to what you wrote if I find it interesting, nothing more.
Lets start with interaction first. When it comes to mindless lifeless forces we observe interacting we notice they only interact when acted upon, they don't initiate their own action because they don't have volitional will to decide to do something. Sentient beings like humans for instance can initiate actions that subsequently lead to reactions.
Just because the point eludes you doesn't mean its going no where your assurances not withstanding.
Since lifeless mindless forces don't initiate action or reaction how did the series of actions and reactions we observe in the universe ever start to begin with? But I digress.
We do know that autonomous sentient beings can initiate action. By saying you don't know then you mean you don't know if we owe our existence to a Creator or not...true?
Try re-reading what I wrote, I can't dummy it down any further.
I didn't ask for any benefit. The point is mindless forces unlike sentient beings, can't plan, design or care about a particular outcome. This is what we observe when mindless forces are given free reign in contrast to the laws of nature which appear to work with clock like regularity.
If I dropped the box of toothpicks and they produced clear as a bell the writing 'Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country' would you in response say well why wouldn't they spell out such a message?
I didn't say it couldn't happen, I asked if in response would you say 'well why wouldn't they spell out such a message?' It was actually a rhetorical question because you'd have be a grade A dimwit to ask such a question if such an incredibly unlikely event occurred.
Still this is an interesting question will an extremely unlikely event occur given enough time and chances to occur. Or more to the point, because something could happen does it mean it will happen? I don't think it can be proven but I would say no. Even though its possible to flip a coin heads 10,000 times in a row does it mean it would happen even if the entire universe was full of coins flipping at the speed of light? I would think even after 13.7 billion years you might get one instance where a coin came up heads 52 times in a row but then tails. But what if 50 billion years from now all of a sudden one of the coins gets on a roll and hits a streak of 1000 heads. After billions of years never getting a streak higher than 52 hits in a row suddenly this coin hits a thousand in a row. My reaction would be to figure out what was wrong with the coin or find some other explanation. I wouldn't be satisfied with thinking it was just an unbelievable stroke of luck or think just because it could happen that means it will happen given enough time and chances.
What are your other expectations from mindless forces? Could mindless forces given enough time and chance produce the Mona Lisa?
Not without the intervention of mind somewhere in the process.
Its not a hypothetical to me that the universe exists. What I'm debating is whether mindless, lifeless forces without plan or intent caused a universe to exist with the right characteristics to cause something unlike it self, life and mind or whether such came about as the result of plan and design by a Creator. That in a nutshell is the case of theism vs atheism.
So in other words in the world of atheist logic, a universe that appears to have been intentionally designed to cause and support life
I'm in luck we live in such a one.
Wikipedia Wrote:Self-organization is a process where some form of global order or coordination arises out of the local interactions between the components of an initially disordered system. This process is spontaneous: it is not directed or controlled by any agent or subsystem inside or outside of the system; however, the laws followed by the process and its initial conditions may have been chosen or caused by an agent. It is often triggered by random fluctuations that are amplified by positive feedback. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized or distributed over all the components of the system. As such it is typically very robust and able to survive and self-repair substantial damage or perturbations.
Self-organization occurs in a variety of physical, chemical, biological, social and cognitive systems. Common examples are crystallization, the emergence of convection patterns in a liquid heated from below, chemical oscillators, the invisible hand of the market, swarming in groups of animals, and the way neural networks learn to recognize complex patterns.
It's a shame you have so few friends you consider a Wikipedia article to be a friend. I couldn't be more dishonest then you a person who claims to be fair minded and impartial yet only attacks what I write. Let's talk about honesty and being disingenuous. You have stated to me several times you're not an atheist and you claim below if a person isn't an atheist there a theist, I don't believe that's true and I don't think you do either but it is what you say. Since according to you you're not an atheist then you are a theist. Yet you have disagreed with nearly every line of evidence or argument I have made in spite of the fact you evidently agree with my conclusion that we owe our existence to a transcendent creator of great power. After all this is what you wrote ' If they aren't "fellow atheists," then they must be theists' in fact according to you, you found that amusing. Now I am taking you at your word and that you couldn't be so damn stupid that you made this statement but forgot you yourself don't fall into either category. Since you are a theist, but disagree with the evidence I have submitted and it appears you disagree with any evidence in favor of theism, why not tell everyone on this board your reasoning, logic and evidence that leads you to believe in theism? Even if you disagree with my reasons and evidence, maybe I'll agree with yours.
I don't necessarily disagree with the articles you cited about self-organization and self-order. The fact such occurs is due to the laws of nature , the same reason there are planets, solar systems, stars and galaxies. The question is why would mindless forces that don't care if there are planets, stars or galaxies or care if self-organization or self order occur or care if life exists or sentient humans exist wind up in an extremely narrow set of characteristics to allow such to occur. I typically get two rebuttals from atheists (although they have repeatedly stated they don't necessarily believe the rebuttals are true) how much stock should I or anyone put in a rebuttal that the person making it won't commit to whether they believe it or not.
Rebuttal 1. Maybe for some unknown (but naturalistic reason) the universe had to be the way we observe it. In other words according to this theory (which they don't actually believe is true) if a universe exists at all, it must for some reason be in a configuration that allows and even causes sentient human life to exist. Isn't that special that mindless forces that didn't plan, design or intend for us to exist nevertheless are compelled by some unknown law of nature (that also didn't plan or intend the existence of planets, stars, galaxies and sentient life) to produce something unlike itself, life and sentience. No wonder atheists don't actually believe this nonsense.
Rebuttal 2.
Now they do a complete 180 degree reversal on the previous objection they don't believe in and claim that our universe maybe one of an infinitude of universes with differing characteristics and we by that old gospel standby time and chance happen to be in the one that allows our existence. They probably lack belief in this claim also but it is objection worthy as is any potential rebuttal regardless of evidence, something they always demand of others but never require of themselves. But since you evidently share my belief in theism even though you disagree with the evidence I submit I suppose it doesn't really matter in the long run.
Quote:No Drew, I'm not. I'm trying to help you understand why you have failed to make your case. Whatever I believed, if I believed anything at all would be irrelevant, it's not a binary situation whereby if you were wrong I would be right or vice versa. You have to make your own case...and if you start to deflect over what you imagine to be the case of another - you're already listing away from doing the work required.
Pardon me did I mistakenly lead you to believe I give a rats ass if think I've made a case or not? In case there was any ambiguity I don't care what your opinion is. I'm responding to what you wrote if I find it interesting, nothing more.
Lets start with interaction first. When it comes to mindless lifeless forces we observe interacting we notice they only interact when acted upon, they don't initiate their own action because they don't have volitional will to decide to do something. Sentient beings like humans for instance can initiate actions that subsequently lead to reactions.
Quote:And? Sentient humans can also be acted upon without any involvement from their will. I'm sure you think this goes somewhere, I assure you it doesn't.
Just because the point eludes you doesn't mean its going no where your assurances not withstanding.
Since lifeless mindless forces don't initiate action or reaction how did the series of actions and reactions we observe in the universe ever start to begin with? But I digress.
Quote:We don't know, and by we...I mean both of us.
We do know that autonomous sentient beings can initiate action. By saying you don't know then you mean you don't know if we owe our existence to a Creator or not...true?
Quote:No, I don't unwittingly make your point, your wits have failed you, and your faith has attempted to shoehorn what I've written into it's own narrative. Every combination of A and B possible very accurately describes chemical evolution, whereby A and B produce AB - an entirely different substance with it;s own unique properties - itself getting thrown back into the mix. What about this is difficult to understand? AB did not exist before the interaction. Sure, our very limited minds (and eyes) see the a and b and go - "well thats not different" - but if you could manage, just for a moment, to realize that we're not talking about a's and b's...I doubt it would give you much trouble. A and B would produce a novel full of A and B and every permutation thereof. I'm not sure what you think your objection is here?
Try re-reading what I wrote, I can't dummy it down any further.
Quote:Whether or not they care if they produce a pattern and whether or not they produce a pattern wouldn't exactly be the same discussion, now would it. The benefit I gave you above is wearing thin.
I didn't ask for any benefit. The point is mindless forces unlike sentient beings, can't plan, design or care about a particular outcome. This is what we observe when mindless forces are given free reign in contrast to the laws of nature which appear to work with clock like regularity.
If I dropped the box of toothpicks and they produced clear as a bell the writing 'Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country' would you in response say well why wouldn't they spell out such a message?
Quote:You haven't explained why this couldn't happen.
I didn't say it couldn't happen, I asked if in response would you say 'well why wouldn't they spell out such a message?' It was actually a rhetorical question because you'd have be a grade A dimwit to ask such a question if such an incredibly unlikely event occurred.
Still this is an interesting question will an extremely unlikely event occur given enough time and chances to occur. Or more to the point, because something could happen does it mean it will happen? I don't think it can be proven but I would say no. Even though its possible to flip a coin heads 10,000 times in a row does it mean it would happen even if the entire universe was full of coins flipping at the speed of light? I would think even after 13.7 billion years you might get one instance where a coin came up heads 52 times in a row but then tails. But what if 50 billion years from now all of a sudden one of the coins gets on a roll and hits a streak of 1000 heads. After billions of years never getting a streak higher than 52 hits in a row suddenly this coin hits a thousand in a row. My reaction would be to figure out what was wrong with the coin or find some other explanation. I wouldn't be satisfied with thinking it was just an unbelievable stroke of luck or think just because it could happen that means it will happen given enough time and chances.
What are your other expectations from mindless forces? Could mindless forces given enough time and chance produce the Mona Lisa?
Quote:They did.....you really don't get it do you?
Not without the intervention of mind somewhere in the process.
Quote:I don't recall ever saying that they couldn't. We're not having a discussion about what mindless forces might or could have doen, but what they did, aren't we? After all, we're talking about our universe, no hypothetical required.
Its not a hypothetical to me that the universe exists. What I'm debating is whether mindless, lifeless forces without plan or intent caused a universe to exist with the right characteristics to cause something unlike it self, life and mind or whether such came about as the result of plan and design by a Creator. That in a nutshell is the case of theism vs atheism.
So in other words in the world of atheist logic, a universe that appears to have been intentionally designed to cause and support life
Quote:If you could find a universe like that it would be easier to have a discussion about it. Get to work.
I'm in luck we live in such a one.
Quote:Let me introduce you to my little friend....
Wikipedia Wrote:Self-organization is a process where some form of global order or coordination arises out of the local interactions between the components of an initially disordered system. This process is spontaneous: it is not directed or controlled by any agent or subsystem inside or outside of the system; however, the laws followed by the process and its initial conditions may have been chosen or caused by an agent. It is often triggered by random fluctuations that are amplified by positive feedback. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized or distributed over all the components of the system. As such it is typically very robust and able to survive and self-repair substantial damage or perturbations.
Self-organization occurs in a variety of physical, chemical, biological, social and cognitive systems. Common examples are crystallization, the emergence of convection patterns in a liquid heated from below, chemical oscillators, the invisible hand of the market, swarming in groups of animals, and the way neural networks learn to recognize complex patterns.
It's a shame you have so few friends you consider a Wikipedia article to be a friend. I couldn't be more dishonest then you a person who claims to be fair minded and impartial yet only attacks what I write. Let's talk about honesty and being disingenuous. You have stated to me several times you're not an atheist and you claim below if a person isn't an atheist there a theist, I don't believe that's true and I don't think you do either but it is what you say. Since according to you you're not an atheist then you are a theist. Yet you have disagreed with nearly every line of evidence or argument I have made in spite of the fact you evidently agree with my conclusion that we owe our existence to a transcendent creator of great power. After all this is what you wrote ' If they aren't "fellow atheists," then they must be theists' in fact according to you, you found that amusing. Now I am taking you at your word and that you couldn't be so damn stupid that you made this statement but forgot you yourself don't fall into either category. Since you are a theist, but disagree with the evidence I have submitted and it appears you disagree with any evidence in favor of theism, why not tell everyone on this board your reasoning, logic and evidence that leads you to believe in theism? Even if you disagree with my reasons and evidence, maybe I'll agree with yours.
I don't necessarily disagree with the articles you cited about self-organization and self-order. The fact such occurs is due to the laws of nature , the same reason there are planets, solar systems, stars and galaxies. The question is why would mindless forces that don't care if there are planets, stars or galaxies or care if self-organization or self order occur or care if life exists or sentient humans exist wind up in an extremely narrow set of characteristics to allow such to occur. I typically get two rebuttals from atheists (although they have repeatedly stated they don't necessarily believe the rebuttals are true) how much stock should I or anyone put in a rebuttal that the person making it won't commit to whether they believe it or not.
Rebuttal 1. Maybe for some unknown (but naturalistic reason) the universe had to be the way we observe it. In other words according to this theory (which they don't actually believe is true) if a universe exists at all, it must for some reason be in a configuration that allows and even causes sentient human life to exist. Isn't that special that mindless forces that didn't plan, design or intend for us to exist nevertheless are compelled by some unknown law of nature (that also didn't plan or intend the existence of planets, stars, galaxies and sentient life) to produce something unlike itself, life and sentience. No wonder atheists don't actually believe this nonsense.
Rebuttal 2.
Now they do a complete 180 degree reversal on the previous objection they don't believe in and claim that our universe maybe one of an infinitude of universes with differing characteristics and we by that old gospel standby time and chance happen to be in the one that allows our existence. They probably lack belief in this claim also but it is objection worthy as is any potential rebuttal regardless of evidence, something they always demand of others but never require of themselves. But since you evidently share my belief in theism even though you disagree with the evidence I submit I suppose it doesn't really matter in the long run.
