Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[The Grand Nudger]

If I understand what you're saying correctly, we agree that there can possibly be only these exact two explanations : God or infinite regress. So infinite regress is the explanation you think is more reasonable, right?

You don't understand at all.  There may be eleventy-two options..but it only takes two to remove any necessity of one particular option.  

As for infinite regress, either it is or it isn't a problem.  If it's a problem, it's a problem for you as well.  This is basic consistency.  I don't particularly mind if you want to open the door to a matryoshka doll scenario up in heaven - but I don't know why you would want to.    

No pal, my argument resembles the teleological argument. And I don't recall the latter being solely built on the anthropic principle.

And a small reminder for you : I don't reject the anthropic principle. I just don't think it's an argument.

LOL, it's not an argument, it's a tautological truth that shows the specific inadequacy of teleological arguments.  Like I said....fucking disastrous.

This is really funny, and, I might add, stupid. The divine universe you're advocating for is the universe that makes no sense, that is not intelligible, in which the simplest tautologies are false. If such a creature exists, then, unfortunately for us, our scientific method can't account for it, can't explain it, can't predict its behavior, etc. It might prove god to you, but it would do a great disservice to our god given ability to understand the world.

Yes, it's a silly world, full of magic.  A world where the natural reality that water drinking creatures require water is subservient and subject to the whims of an all powerful djinn who does not follow those natural rules.  That is precisely the point.  Our scientific method -can- explain why we are water drinking creatures, and why there is water here.  It certainly couldn't explain..if we found ourselves living on the moon, how that was possible.  

To put it in simple terms : you prefer the (unintelligble universe+god) pack to the pack - I would argue - you already have : (intelligible+god).

The funny thing here is that if the universe were indeed as you want it to be, you would again simply go the other route : a divine universe is the universe where your nonsensical creature doesn't exist, where only orderly laws work.

You're posturing, attempting to equate your moronic superstitions with intelligibility and reason.....but there's no point..as I keep reminding you.  No matter how many stupid things you might have to say on the subject of gods...I'm not interested in joining your club.

I repeat : I don't reject the tautologies you're talking about. And you can play the "theists destroy their religion" game somewhere else.

You present such an enthusiastic partner, though?  Still, I'm glad that you no longer reject the anthropic principle as meaningless, as you did not one short post ago.  What other parts of the things you've said are you willing to abandon as easily? Let's take care of all the low hanging fruit and rotten limbs.

[R00tKiT]

You don't understand at all.  There may be eleventy-two options..but it only takes two to remove any necessity of one particular option. 

No, bro. There cannot be more than two options, review the law of excluded middle. We either have a finite or infinite regress of causes of the universe. That's it, finite or infinite. Finite implies an eternal entity because of the principle "something can't come from nothing".

As for infinite regress, either it is or it isn't a problem.  If it's a problem, it's a problem for you as well.  This is basic consistency.  I don't particularly mind if you want to open the door to a matryoshka doll scenario up in heaven - but I don't know why you would want to.   

I would hold off on discussing infinite regress until we agree on the point abve. It would be progress of a kind though if every atheist on earth honestly declares that infinite regess is his only and last resort.

LOL, it's not an argument, it's a tautological truth that shows the specific inadequacy of teleological arguments.  Like I said....fucking disastrous.

Teleological arguments are analogical arguments, and don't depend on the anthropic principle for their soundness.
Actually, you are the disastrous, misinformed part of the discussion, and you already exhibit grave ignorance of our basic philosophical arguments for God, there:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleo...arguments/

Quote : "4.1.1 No explanation needed

Three approaches have been taken to undermine the demand for explanation presented by fine-tuning.

4.1.1.1 Weak anthropic principle"

And bingo! The anthropic principle is actually a response to fine tuning. In particular, nobody uses it to prove fine tuning. Got it?

And that's fucking disastrous, sir.

Yes, it's a silly world, full of magic.  A world where the natural reality that water drinking creatures require water is subservient and subject to the whims of an all powerful djinn who does not follow those natural rules.  That is precisely the point.  Our scientific method -can- explain why we are water drinking creatures, and why there is water here.  It certainly couldn't explain..if we found ourselves living on the moon, how that was possible. 

This really should be written on the skyline : Only a silly, illogical world would convince atheists of God. That's where atheists are prepared to go to avoid the unavoidable truth.

What you're missing here is that, what shouldn't follow natural rules is the all powerful djinn, and the djinn only, everything else, every shred of existence, every atom, should be subservient to his divine commandment i.e. physical laws.  Your scientific method, by the way, is not your invention, the universe endowed to you made such a method possible and efficient.

You present such an enthusiastic partner, though?  Still, I'm glad that you no longer reject the anthropic principle as meaningless, as you did not one short post ago.  What other parts of the things you've said are you willing to abandon as easily?  Let's take care of all the low hanging fruit and rotten limbs.

Meaningless isn't equivalent to false. I suggest you stop this dishonest, cheap strawman game, and address the real issues we're discussing.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, bro. There cannot be more than two options, review the law of excluded middle. We either have a finite or infinite regress of causes of the universe. That's it, finite or infinite. Finite implies an eternal entity because of the principle "something can't come from nothing".

The law of the excluded middle is not the insistence that we accept a false dichotomy.  We need only accept that there are two possible ways for a state of affairs to come into being to remove any necessity of either of those two ways. If you're absolutely insistent on forcing an informed decision between god or not god (however many millions of not god ways we're condensing into a single category for effect) - then okay....not god is the informed answer. Again, I'm fine if you want to go full on "something can't come from nothing" - but I don't know why you'd assert that rule, as a god botherer.  You clearly think that at least one something can come from nothing.

I'm fine with you thinking as much, and you should be fine with it too.  

I would hold off on discussing infinite regress until we agree on the point abve. It would be progress of a kind though if every atheist on earth honestly declares that infinite regess is his only and last resort.

Again, if something is a problem, it's not just "a problem for atheists".  Basic consistency.  

Teleological arguments are analogical arguments, and don't depend on the anthropic principle for their soundness.
Actually, you are the disastrous, misinformed part of the discussion, and you already exhibit grave ignorance of our basic philosophical arguments for God, there:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleo...arguments/

Quote : "4.1.1 No explanation needed

Three approaches have been taken to undermine the demand for explanation presented by fine-tuning.

4.1.1.1 Weak anthropic principle"

And bingo! The anthropic principle is actually a response to fine tuning.

And that's fucking disastrous, sir.

You do see that you've repeated exactly what I just told you, right?  

Let's read again, as in actually read what I'm writing to you, or just stop asking?

LOL, it's not an argument, it's a tautological truth that shows the specific inadequacy of teleological arguments.  Like I said....fucking disastrous.

.................?

This really should be written on the skyline : Only a silly, illogical world would convince atheists of God. That's where atheists are prepared to go to avoid the unavoidable truth.

What you're missing here is that, what shouldn't follow natural rules is the all powerful djinn, and the djinn only, everything else, every shred of existence, every atom, should be subservient to his divine commandment i.e. physical laws.  Your scientific method, by the way, is not your invention, the universe endowed to you made such a method possible and efficient.

If you say so...and yet I remain uninterested in joining your club all the same. I keep trying to explain to you that even though I think you lack a grasp of basic facts, or even the concept of a fact, it isn't on account of some shit god not being really real™ that I'm irreligious. This is true of many..many many many agnostics and atheists. You could argue until you're blue in the face with people who don't believe in the fairy tales that you do - but you will make no progress..by doing so, towards resolving their objections towards your death cult.

Meaningless isn't equivalent to false. I suggest you stop this dishonest, cheap strawman game, and address the real issues we're discussing.

What real issues?  Succinctly, and with as little islamic fapping as possible, describe any real issue whatsoever.

[LadyForCamus]

And, what would it take for you to acknowledge an argument from ignorance fallacy? There are things on this planet that appear designed, but are not designed.

I would suggest you start by defining "designed" as you're using it here, just to make sure you're not including "directly seeing the designer" in the definition. In which case it's automatic for you to reject any argument from design.

This is your argument. What is your definition of design? For the third time I’ll ask: was a snowflake designed?

Therefore, the appearance of design is not a valid indicator of actual design.

Again, it seems the only thing that would convince you of design is witnessing the design process

No. What would convince me of design is evidence of the designer, because that is the only way to get to a rationally justified belief in ID.

you are excluding any argument starting from precise laws of chemistry/physics that led to the things you think they only have the appearance of design. And the existence of laws do warrant a lawgiver.

So, your god had to fine tune natural laws down to the quantum level in order for us to be able to exist? Why is god so constricted by the laws of nature? Not much of a god if you ask me.

[Abaddon_ire]

Well, that is amusing. You are stealing a christian apologist argument for Islam. But I guess that is the islamic MO. It can discover nothing, and so must rely on stealing the concepts of it's betters. Sorry, but islam had it's golden age long ago. It was the repository of learning once upon a time. And it threw it all away. And that was a tragedy

Aw, touching Islam story. So.. where is your answer to the argument I just stole?

Simple.
The universe is quite clearly not fine tuned for us. Most of it will kill us.
Earth is not fine tuned for us. Most of it will kill us.
Biology is not fine tuned for us, most of it will kill us.

If you are going to claim that your magic sky fairy tuned the universe for us, he/she/it/housecat did a spectacularly crappy job of it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Unless the point was to kill us. The soul forge strikes again. As usual, apologists like Kloros arguments are dishonest, and do not accurately reflect what they believe about the world to be true.

Partly, this is because they are appealing to you, or us - there's a basic comprehension that a specific form of validation will be accepted by people with a vastly disparate view of the world. Their arguments aren't meant to express the god or reality they believe in, but a version close enough - that you are expected to be more open towards. In effect, they're attempting to apply our standards, but unfamiliar with those standards, fail spectacularly at doing so.

What he really believes is that the world is designed to test, and yes...kill us. That this is a deserved state of affairs. That we are created to acquire virtues in order to be nearer to allah. Adversity, all suffering even up to death - a requirement of soul forging. It wasn't fine tuned to support our lives...or any natural reality. It was fine tuned for soul forging.

[Abaddon_ire]

Unless the point was to kill us.  The soul forge strikes again.  As usual, apologists like Kloros arguments are dishonest, and do not accurately reflect what they believe about the world to be true.  

Yup. WLC was nailed on this. He tried to justify that children suffering and dying was a good thing. Kloro is merely brazenly stealing such christian apologetics.

Partly, this is because they are appealing to you, or us - there's a basic comprehension that a specific form of validation will be accepted by people with a vastly disparate view of the world.  Their arguments aren't meant to express the god or reality they believe in, but a version close enough - that you are expected to be more open towards.  In effect, they're attempting to apply our standards, but unfamiliar with those standards, fail spectacularly at doing so.  

Again correct. There is a reason that the Wedge document exists. It is a dishonest attempt top exploit the honesty of respondents.

What he really believes is that the world is designed to test, and yes...kill us.  That this is a deserved state of affairs.  That we are created to acquire virtues in order to be nearer to allah.  Adversity, all suffering even up to death - a requirement of soul forging.  It wasn't fine tuned to support our lives...or any natural reality.  It was fine tuned for soul forging.

Yes, but that is supposed to come later in the argument. Kloro has jumped the gun. Mostly through inexperience with the arguments AFAICS. This is understandable. He is attempting to use christian apologetics and apply them to islam. It is an odd tactic, since those apologetics eventually lead to a christian god, not an islamic one.

I would love to see him argue with Bruggencate.

[The Grand Nudger]

Muslims believe many of the same things as christians. This is understandable, since their religion is a synthesis of jewish, christian, and local pagan beliefs.

Rather than saying that they stole these beliefs or their attendant apologetics - we can charitably say that they also think they are good, or true, ideas. The same is easily the case for agnostics and atheists.

[Abaddon_ire]

Muslims believe many of the same things as christians.  This is understandable, since their religion is a synthesis of jewish, christian, and local pagan beliefs.  

Rather than saying that they stole these beliefs or their attendant apologetics - we can charitably say that they also think they are good, or true, ideas.  The same is easily the case for agnostics and atheists.

I'm not in a charitable mood. Being "nice" about a plainly absurd belief does not help anyone.

[R00tKiT]

The law of the excluded middle is not the insistence that we accept a false dichotomy. 

In what sense saying "finite or infinite" is, or can be, a false dichotomy? Explain, don't just merely throw accusations.

If you're absolutely insistent on forcing an informed decision between god or not god (however many millions of not god ways we're condensing into a single category for effect) - then okay....not god is the informed answer.  Again, I'm fine if you want to go full on "something can't come from nothing" - but I don't know why you'd assert that rule, as a god botherer.  You clearly think that at least one something can come from nothing.

No, I don't think anything can come from nothing. This is a gross misunderstanding of what the word infinite means. If we assert a god is there, he was always there. There was never a nothing state he came from. Therefore, "something can't come from nothing" is universally true and there is no exception.
Infinite regress is actually the misinformed answer. If there was any concept of time or, equivalently, some notion of delay between two causes, then infinite regress is already impossible, because we are here, which means an infinite amount of time already elapsed, and that is absurd. If we imagine an infinite row of soldiers, each one waiting for his predecessor's gunshot to shoot himself, then no one will ever shoot!

You do see that you've repeated exactly what I just told you, right?  

Let's read again, as in actually read what I'm writing to you, or just stop asking?

LOL, it's not an argument, it's a tautological truth that shows the specific inadequacy of teleological arguments.  Like I said....fucking disastrous.

.................?

Why then, some pages ago. You said this :

Do you really reject the anthropic principle?  Isn't the anthropic principle exactly why you think some god is needed?  Something has to account for the requirements of mans existence, and any cosmological notion must account for those requirements?

I don't think that you've thought this through. 

I didn't even mention the anthropic principle before that, you brought that into the discussion without any warrant ,and started complaining about why I am not using it. Odd, really odd.

If you say so...and yet I remain uninterested in joining your club all the same.  I keep trying to explain to you that even though I think you lack a grasp of basic facts, or even the concept of a fact, it isn't on account of some shit god not being really real™ that I'm irreligious.  This is true of many..many many many agnostics and atheists.  You could argue until you're blue in the face with people who don't believe in the fairy tales that you do - but you will make no progress..by doing so, towards resolving their objections towards your death cult.

If I am not making any progress, then it's mainly due to your close mindedness, and inability to leave stereotypes aside and discuss the so called objections .. objectively. And you made that clear when you turned our discussion about morality and anachronism into flyting.

---

This is your argument. What is your definition of design? For the third time I’ll ask: was a snowflake designed?

Design is anything complex/sophisticated enough to make itd coming by chance at least very unlikely.  And a snowflake is, in the broad sense, designed. Its formation is a result of the ordered structure of ice.

No. What would convince me of design is evidence of the designer, because that is the only way to get to a rationally justified belief in ID.

You just want the design argument, which is an inference from what's around us, to be turned on its head. Providing evidence of a designer per se won't even include design as a premise. Orderly laws around us - that make things appear to be designed - require an explanation themselves. And the most reasonable explanation is a personal entity, since it obviously produced personal beings.

So, your god had to fine tune natural laws down to the quantum level in order for us to be able to exist? Why is god so constricted by the laws of nature? Not much of a god if you ask me.

The whole thing was a no brainer for god, by definition. So this hardly counts as an objection.