Why make stupid unsustainable arguments?

[Cato]

We hear this ground leveling bullshit a'plenty......pretty sure you're going to fail to provide what you've -just- claimed to possess.  Let's see some of that evidence.  Surely, if it doesn't materialize..then there is nothing pointless or difficult about concluding that there is none.

The problem is that our new friend actually considers shit like the ontological , teleological, cosmological arguments and argument from morality evidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not my problem, though, lol.

[Cato]

Agreed. Just an observation, not a call to arms.

[KevinM1]

You infer a designer because you cannot allow for naturally occurring complexity in your world view.  Please do not speak for the rest of us.  You infer a designer.  We do not.

Moreover, your analogy sucks.  We infer an artist or turtle placer because we can make a comparison.  We know what art is, how it's constructed, and how it differs from things that are not art.  We know that turtles cannot climb things.  With life, we don't have that kind of comparison to make.  We simply do not know if DNA is special or mundane, and to infer anything out of that ignorance is idiotic.

"I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer.  There's no need to presuppose a designer.  Complexity alone doesn't beget anything.

 It is absurd to say my worldview cannot allow for naturally occurring complexity. If science proves something, it must be accepted. It is the naturalistic worldview that is extremely limiting. 

How is the following an argument from ignorance?

Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems. 
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts. 
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, ... 

[i'm lazy. cut and pasted from the first website I found that listed it this way (I have no idea about the site itself). ]

No, it doesn't, because Premise One is where the ignorance comes in.

We're dealing with an embarrassingly small sample size.  Namely, one known planet that contains life in a universe with potentially many billions/trillions/numbers I don't even know the word to describe planets and moons that may harbor life.  A thorough search simply hasn't actually happened for all reasonable definitions of the word 'thorough', therefore the first premise is faulty.

Science says "We don't know."  To infer anything beyond that is wish casting.

[SteveII]

 It is absurd to say my worldview cannot allow for naturally occurring complexity. If science proves something, it must be accepted. It is the naturalistic worldview that is extremely limiting. 

How is the following an argument from ignorance?

Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems. 
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts. 
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, ... 

[i'm lazy. cut and pasted from the first website I found that listed it this way (I have no idea about the site itself). ]

No, it doesn't, because Premise One is where the ignorance comes in.

We're dealing with an embarrassingly small sample size.  Namely, one known planet that contains life in a universe with potentially many billions/trillions/numbers I don't even know the word to describe planets and moons that may harbor life.  A thorough search simply hasn't actually happened for all reasonable definitions of the word 'thorough', therefore the first premise is faulty.

Science says "We don't know."  To infer anything beyond that is wish casting.

First, your appeal that some other possible world might provide answers do nothing to defeat the truth of the premise. Second, what does sample size have to do with anything? Life on one planet isn't enough to draw conclusions from? Are we to subject every scientific inquiry to "well, if we had more data from other worlds...?"

If science says "we don't know" does not mean we can't draw conclusions from the lack of evidence and/or theory.

[KevinM1]

No, it doesn't, because Premise One is where the ignorance comes in.

We're dealing with an embarrassingly small sample size.  Namely, one known planet that contains life in a universe with potentially many billions/trillions/numbers I don't even know the word to describe planets and moons that may harbor life.  A thorough search simply hasn't actually happened for all reasonable definitions of the word 'thorough', therefore the first premise is faulty.

Science says "We don't know."  To infer anything beyond that is wish casting.

First, your appeal that some other possible world might provide answers do nothing to defeat the truth of the premise. Second, what does sample size have to do with anything? Life on one planet isn't enough to draw conclusions from? Are we to subject every scientific inquiry to "well, if we had more data from other worlds...?"

If science says "we don't know" does not mean we can't draw conclusions from the lack of evidence and/or theory.

Yes, it does defeat the truth of the premise.  It said a thorough search.  There hasn't been a thorough search because there haven't been other examples of life to look at.  We're dealing with a woefully incomplete set - carbon based life on a singular planetoid that uses DNA as a mean to replicate and evolve.  And given you're talking about a designer of the universe/reality, extrapolating from a set of 1 out of billions upon billions of other possible examples is mind boggling ignorant.

No, we don't need to subject every scientific inquiry to data from other worlds.  Don't be dense.  What we can't do is say that because life exhibits certain qualities here, that this is always the case either because this is the only planet with life (which we don't know) or because all life in the universe exhibits DNA or something similar (which we also don't know).  Or that these processes are somehow special, or somehow impossible for nature to replicate.  You're operating from willful ignorance at this point.

And it's difficult to draw conclusions from a lack of evidence.  In this case, a lack of evidence does not point to god.  That's the classic God of the Gaps fallacy.

[GrandizerII]

If there was no progression in the mind of God prior to creating the universe, if there was no "prior" at all, then the creation of the universe was a mindless act.

That does not follow. Why can't a single state of consciousness be the cause of the universe (and the beginning of time)?

Regarding the first half of the question, you believe God himself needed no cause, but you won't grant that possibility for the universe or reality overall? This is just special pleading.

As for infinite regression, I have not seen any logical argument that effectively shows that it is illogical. Just because a concept is not intuitive to the limited human mind doesn't mean it automatically defies logic.

Hilbert's Hotel

No, you just didn't get it. Efficient causes need not be sentient. And, even given the Creator, the universe itself was not the result of sentience.

So you think that the universe springing into being from nothing (no efficient cause nor material cause) makes more sense than just an efficient cause.

Single state of consciousness implies no planning. So your God's creation was achieved spontaneously, not mindfully. Therefore, God's mind was not needed. If so, why invoke God as the best explanation when a mindless entity could easily be the first cause instead.

Hilbert's Hotel is not an argument against infinite regression but against treating infinity as a number.

Your last statement is a strawman and, again, shows you didn't understand my argument. My argument isn't about the universe springing forth from nothing, but about the fact that reality itself could still account for the existence of this universe. Realiy itself is the efficient cause.

FTR, it's theists who tend to argue that the universe came out of nothing.

[KevinM1]

Steve's argument, like all other ID arguments, boils down to complexity = a designer. That's it.

Science doesn't support that because science alone cannot determine intent. Moreover, science is largely based on observation, yet we are woefully limited to a very limited sample. And while the diversity of life on this planet is breathtaking, chemically it's largely the same from species to species.

Even further, we have no means to divorce us from that singular sample because we are a part of it. We simply do not have the frame of reference needed to determine if our carbon based, DNA fueled life is miraculous or mundane. And any claims positive or negative on that front are, as I said before, wish casting.

The correct answer is "We don't know." Any other answer is wrong. Full stop.

[GrandizerII]

Steve's argument, like all other ID arguments, boils down to complexity = a designer.  That's it.

Science doesn't support that because science alone cannot determine intent.  Moreover, science is largely based on observation, yet we are woefully limited to a very limited sample.  And while the diversity of life on this planet is breathtaking, chemically it's largely the same from species to species.

Even further, we have no means to divorce us from that singular sample because we are a part of it.  We simply do not have the frame of reference needed to determine if our carbon based, DNA fueled life is miraculous or mundane.  And any claims positive or negative on that front are, as I said before, wish casting.

The correct answer is "We don't know."  Any other answer is wrong.  Full stop.

I agree. At the end of the day, no one really knows, but one can say that God as an explanation poses a lot more logical problems than certain other alternatives.

[Aractus]

Religion still does more good than harm. It still provides people with the benefits that they've drawn from it for 300,000 years - in all of its various forms and belief systems.

[Citation needed]

From what I know, people haven't been around that long. By what metric are you measuring more good than harm?

People have been around for 6-13 million years, depending on how you want to define our ancestry. But 6 million years ago is when our oldest known ancestor lived that was separate to chimps (and it could stretch back 13 million years), thus from that time our species was "special". Perhaps not as special as it is now, but it was different enough to eventually lead to modern humans.

Belief in the supernatural has been around for as long as we know. The Aborigines here in Australia have a belief system that stretches back at least 40-60,000 years, and theirs is the oldest known & still present belief system. My point is these beliefs are part of human nature.

I don't need to measure it in antiquity, I rely solely on the scientific theories of game theory and evolution (as applied to systems).