RE: The Case for Theism
April 5, 2013 at 9:40 pm
(This post was last modified: April 5, 2013 at 10:13 pm by Drew_2013.)
Apophenia,
If you care to respond to my last post to you, I'll respond to your last post.
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.
No my whole case was built in 5 indisputable facts, no God in the gaps necessary.
You are aware that theists disabused folks of such notions long before scientists did right?
Really?
The premise is.
1. A mysterious phenomena exists
2. Scientists examine the phenomena and explain how it works by an appeal to the laws of nature
3. The laws of physics explains how something functions without appealing to the existnece of a Creator.
4. Therefore a Creator doesn't exist
Is that your presmise?
You're not quoting me because you know I never said that.
I did say
1. The fact the universe exists
2. The fact life exists
3. The fact sentient life exists.
I merely stated the fact of their existence.
If you care to respond to my last post to you, I'll respond to your last post.
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.
Quote:I'm just going to say your whole post is one big "god of the gaps" argument, while trying to shift the burden of proof to "naturalism".
And I'm also going to elaborate a bit on what Luke said, about the history of the god of the gaps argument.
No my whole case was built in 5 indisputable facts, no God in the gaps necessary.
Quote:Some hundreds of years ago, people believed that almost everything in the world was the product of some god. The spirit world, where each animal, plant, mountain, cloud, moon, sun has a spirit or is itself a god... only humans are subject to those spirits.
You are aware that theists disabused folks of such notions long before scientists did right?
Quote:So mindless they are predictable
Really?
Quote:As science establishes these "rules of Nature", the god-did-it explanation shrinks in scope. What was once explained by the existence of a god, became explained by simple mindless forces. The god explanation shrank into the gaps in the scientific explanation of the world.
The premise is.
1. A mysterious phenomena exists
2. Scientists examine the phenomena and explain how it works by an appeal to the laws of nature
3. The laws of physics explains how something functions without appealing to the existnece of a Creator.
4. Therefore a Creator doesn't exist
Is that your presmise?
Quote:And those are the gaps you examine here:
- Where/how/why did the universe come into being?
- How did life on Earth come into being?
- How did intelligence evolve?
You're not quoting me because you know I never said that.
I did say
1. The fact the universe exists
2. The fact life exists
3. The fact sentient life exists.
I merely stated the fact of their existence.
