Atheism destroyed with a question

[Esquilax]

We can leave science to demonstrate the complexity and sheer perfect order and magnificence of a purposefully created universe. More than enough of a demonstration for anyone even former atheists.

So, generalized handwaving to avoid actually having to provide evidence, followed by a "pattern recognition therefore design," fallacious argument?

It's truly fascinating how unwilling you are to go into detail on any point.

Yes but you would reject it as evidence and put it down to coincidence or "just the way the universe happened to be" by chance.

Or I would recognize that it doesn't demonstrate what you think it does, Captain Wishful Thinking. Don't blame me for your own failings, Sword.

[Crossless2.0]

Can you provide evidence of such intent, or is this another argument from ignorance/incredulity that you're positing?

Yes but you would reject it as evidence and put it down to coincidence or "just the way the universe happened to be" by chance.

Esquilax has always struck me as open-minded and even-handed. Give him (and us) the benefit of the doubt and provide the evidence of intent and purposeful design. You keep making assertions and claims but refuse to back them up with anything. That isn't how this is supposed to work.

[Sword of Christ]

So, generalized handwaving to avoid actually having to provide evidence, followed by a "pattern recognition therefore design," fallacious argument?

If it was constructed to the level of complexity as it is with life in it's utterly complex form as the result of the process and you're saying that happened by chance. Well you're wrong that's all I have to say to you. It's like if you never saw a car before and didn't know how it was made you would say "I bet some kind of a natural random made that car", you're bonkers to say that. The universe is far more complex and perfectly crafted than a car so you're bonkers to say that in much the same way.

It's truly fascinating how unwilling you are to go into detail on any point.

You can go into thew mathematical structures and patterns of the universe, natural forces, living forms and the various mathematical ratios and aspects of the human body and DNA, the Golden Section and all the rest of it.



But it helps if you accept the universe is the purpose made creation of the almighty God before you get into those details.

Or I would recognize that it doesn't demonstrate what you think it does, Captain Wishful Thinking. Don't blame me for your own failings, Sword.

Again you're locked into this mindset where God is wishful not rational thinking because it somehow goes against science and reason. Of course it does no such thing you'll find everything ties together science included.

[Esquilax]

If it was constructed to the level of complexity as it is with life in it's utterly complex form as the result of the process and you're saying that happened by chance. Well you're wrong that's all I have to say to you.

Assertion, assertion, assertion.

It's like if you never saw a car before and didn't know how it was made you would say "I bet some kind of a natural random made that car", you're bonkers to say that. The universe is far more complex and perfectly crafted than a car so you're bonkers to say that in much the same way.

We don't recognize design via complexity, genius. We recognize design via contrast with the natural. Complex things do occur in nature, you know; you don't just magically intuit design into complex things, that's begging the question right from the outset by inserting your conclusion "there's a designer," into your premise "complex things denote designers."

Design is recognized by comparing it to things that are naturally occurring, which makes detecting design impossible under your worldview, because to you everything is designed. So when you see that car, you're looking at a designed thing, on a world of designed things, in a universe of designed things, and you yourself are a designed thing. Where's your point of contrast to make any determination at all?

You can go into thew mathematical structures and patterns of the universe, natural forces, living forms and the various mathematical ratios and aspects of the human body and DNA, the Golden Section and all the rest of it.

So as I said earlier, your argument boils down to "pattern recognition therefore causation."? That's an unjustified leap of logic.

But it helps if you accept the universe is the purpose made creation of the almighty God before you get into those details.

So, it helps to see that you're right if you presuppose that you're right?

Hall of shame!

Again you're locked into this mindset where God is wishful not rational thinking because it somehow goes against science and reason. Of course it does no such thing you'll find everything ties together science included.

Assertion, assertion, assertion.

Take it to the debate forum with me, if you're so confident.

[pocaracas]

If it was constructed to the level of complexity as it is

Strike 1

The universe is far more complex and perfectly crafted than a car so you're bonkers to say that in much the same way.

Strike 2

But it helps if you accept the universe is the purpose made creation of the almighty God before you get into those details.

Strike 3!
You're OUT!

[Faith No More]

We don't recognize design via complexity, genius. We recognize design via contrast with the natural. Complex things do occur in nature, you know; you don't just magically intuit design into complex things, that's begging the question right from the outset by inserting your conclusion "there's a designer," into your premise "complex things denote designers."

On top of that, Hume showed that the fine tuning argument also fails because there is no basis for comparison. There is no other universe to contrast it with to determine what does and doesn't constitute fine-tuning.

[Sword of Christ]

Assertion, assertion, assertion.

Assertions of facts science can support with evidence. Assertions that Atheists don't believe in God, last time I checked that was the idea of it. If anything I said is wrong feel free to point out what and why.

We don't recognize design via complexity, genius.

So if you had never seen a fighter plane before and you saw one flying overhead you wouldn't see it as being something purposefully designed and crafted by an intelligence for a purpose? As long as we're clear on your way of thinking. It's not a usual way of thinking though most people would recognize the plane as a work of an intelligence. Now take the universe as a whole and the exact same applies. You don't need to prove it was you just ought to know via common sense. You can't prove it anyway seeing as science can study God directly only what he created.

We recognize design via contrast with the natural.

The natural is the design, the universe is the creation. Not a bare assertion that's whole entire the idea and central crux of argument.

Complex things do occur in nature, you know

But that's the whole point...

; you don't just magically intuit design into complex things

Exactly, therefore the universe has a purposeful intelligent creator. We're getting somewhere now.

, that's begging the question right from the outset by inserting your conclusion "there's a designer," into your premise "complex things denote designers."

In the same way as you would recognize a plane as having a designer even if you didn't know what it was. That's not beginning the question it's just what is obvious and you can see and understand.

Design is recognized by comparing it to things that are naturally occurring

Everything that occurs naturally is part of the design, God created it. I'm pointing out the idea concept you're not understanding not making an assertion btw. You are saying the same thing as "cars don't need makers".

which makes detecting design impossible under your worldview, because to you everything is designed.

That's the idea yes, all the laws of physics and natural processes of the universe and everything.

So when you see that car, you're looking at a designed thing, on a world of designed things, in a universe of designed things, and you yourself are a designed thing. Where's your point of contrast to make any determination at all?

There isn't one you just have to use your common sense and rational mind. It takes a rational mind to know of the mind a rational creator, we're in his image after all.

So as I said earlier, your argument boils down to "pattern recognition therefore causation."? That's an unjustified leap of logic.

You can see how the whole entirety of the universe ties together based upon the overall framework which was set in place from the moment of creation. But if you're in this "cars don't need makers" mindset you won't really appreciate or see it for what it is.

So, it helps to see that you're right if you presuppose that you're right?

That's all you're doing, I'm supplying the reason and evidence and you're ignoring it. That's all atheism is.

Hall of shame!

Assertion, assertion, assertion.

A valid and factual observation isn't an assertion.

Take it to the debate forum with me, if you're so confident.

I think I already covered the reasoning behind the teleological argument which is one the main arguments that fully refutes atheist metaphysical position. There are other very good rational arguments against atheism of course.

[pocaracas]

Assertion, assertion, assertion.

Assertions of facts science can support with evidence. Assertions that Atheists don't believe in God, last time I checked that was the idea of it. If anything I said is wrong feel free to point out what and why.

It's wrong, because you have zero evidence for your assertions... just "faith".
And that doesn't cut it.

We don't recognize design via complexity, genius.

So if you had never seen a fighter plane before and you saw one flying overhead you wouldn't see it as being something purposefully designed and crafted by an intelligence for a purpose? As long as we're clear on your way of thinking. It's not a usual way of thinking though most people would recognize the plane as a work of an intelligence. Now take the universe as a whole and the exact same applies. You don't need to prove it was you just ought to know via common sense. You can't prove it anyway seeing as science can study God directly only what he created.

You design argument fails when you use these analogies, because they are not equivalent to what your designer faith-based entity allegedly did.

When you build a car, a plane, a chair, whatever... you're taking materials already in existence and assembling them in a way that generates an object with a new purpose.

But your god-boy, allegedly made all of this out of nothing... The guy didn't transform something into something else... it just poofed stuff into existence.
And that... that... sort of ruins your analogy.


Besides, if, as it seems, you accept that this all came from the singularity that preceded the big-bang, then whatever was created then was far from complex... a soup of very simple and energetic quarks...

[Bad Wolf]

Assertions of facts science can support with evidence.

What evidence? What fucking evidence? You have presented absolutely none.

So if you had never seen a fighter plane before and you saw one flying overhead you wouldn't see it as being something purposefully designed and crafted by an intelligence for a purpose?

Complete strawman, that is not what esquilax said. We recognise design, not by complexity, but by comparing and contrasting with other things that are designed and with nature. So yes, the reason we would recognise a fighter plane is because we compare it to other planes that have been built, we compare it to human design.

The natural is the design, the universe is the creation. Not a bare assertion that's whole entire the idea and central crux of argument.

No, that is an assertion. Saying 'the universe is the creation' is the assertion. You have no way to prove your assertion and all the evidence that you put forward can be explained without your god.

Exactly, therefore the universe has a purposeful intelligent creator. We're getting somewhere now.

You have completely misunderstood the point. Go back and read it again.

[Jacob(smooth)]

If it was constructed to the level of complexity as it is with life in it's utterly complex form as the result of the process and you're saying that happened by chance.

Actually evolution is the opposite of chance. There is a third way.

But anyway. Continue