Common theist argument: "You know, I used to be an atheist myself..."

[Keith&Co.]

In all cases where a well-demonstrated explanation has been found for phenomena, it's been a natural explanation with no immaterial spirits involved.

And when a competent researcher says 'God only knows' the 'yet' is silent.

 

[atrib]

It's actually self-parody. It's theists who think there was magic, and that we came from the clay.

Its not so strange imo, if you take the viewpoint that we are made from the same elements found in the earth e.g. ashes to ashes , dust to dust etc.. (to be moulded like clay).

Its not a viewpoint that we are made from the same elements found in nature, it is a fact.

With the Christian belief system the magic is unspoken, and is the lack of explanation about the magical processes that created the creator god. It is absurdly hypocritical to believe that simple self replicating molecules could never arise through natural processes, but that a sophisticated, powerful god just conveniently happens to exist, no explanations needed. That's like believing that little Johnny down the street couldn't possibly have taught himself simple addition and subtraction at age 3, but your own newborn day old baby can solve the gravitational field equations including working out the manifold geometry of spacetime in the presence of complex energy distributions and local singularities. Only several orders of magnitude more ridiculous.

 

[lpetrich]

Speaking of which...Happy Birthday Charles Darwin.
Please accept this lovely watch as a token of our appreciation for your life's work.

View attachment 20126

So if you went to a museum of watches and clocks and other timekeeping devices, would you conclude that they were all designed by a single omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent entity that your sect worships as the One True God?

It ought to be evident that the designers of those watches are multiple, that they have finite capabilities, and that they are fallible. Since the designers of watches are multiple, finite, and fallible, we conclude that the designers of our planet's biota must also be multiple, finite, and fallible.

 

[atrib]

So if you went to a museum of watches and clocks and other timekeeping devices, would you conclude that they were all designed by a single omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent entity that your sect worships as the One True God?

It ought to be evident that the designers of those watches are multiple, that they have finite capabilities, and that they are fallible. Since the designers of watches are multiple, finite, and fallible, we conclude that the designers of our planet's biota must also be multiple, finite, and fallible.

He knows all this already. He is feigning ignorance and stupidity to get a rise out of people.

 

[skepticalbip]

So if you went to a museum of watches and clocks and other timekeeping devices, would you conclude that they were all designed by a single omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent entity that your sect worships as the One True God?

It ought to be evident that the designers of those watches are multiple, that they have finite capabilities, and that they are fallible. Since the designers of watches are multiple, finite, and fallible, we conclude that the designers of our planet's biota must also be multiple, finite, and fallible.

He knows all this already. He is feigning ignorance and stupidity to get a rise out of people.

It is rather odd that Lion attributes all sorts of magic to this sky critter but then points out that it couldn't make a watch. Only humans have the power to make such things.

 

[Learner]

Its not a viewpoint that we are made from the same elements found in nature, it is a fact.

With the Christian belief system the magic is unspoken, and is the lack of explanation about the magical processes that created the creator god.
That's like believing that little Johnny down the street couldn't possibly have taught himself simple addition and subtraction at age 3, but your own newborn day old baby can solve the gravitational field equations including working out the manifold geometry of spacetime in the presence of complex energy distributions and local singularities. Only several orders of magnitude more ridiculous.

I meant, taking the viewpoint that "biblically" it says the same thing ... i.e. made from the earth.

It is absurdly hypocritical to believe that simple self replicating molecules could never arise through natural processes, but that a sophisticated, powerful god just conveniently happens to exist, no explanations needed.

Hypocritical? So if one reckons likewise, that its absurd that any Creator could have made those molecules, but philosophically or mathematically could however , make a variety of alternative theories, this would be the explanation(s) needed? Naturalistic magic?

 

[bilby]

We are not 'made from the earth' though. We are made from plants and water; And plants are made from air, water, and sunlight.

The fraction of any animal (including humans) that is made from 'earth', even in the broadest sense, is minuscule. The whole 'made from earth' thing is an error that pre-dates the Bible, and stems from the oversimplified 'earth, air, fire, water' system for attempting to understand reality - under that scheme, it is assumed that people are mostly earth, on the reasonable but completely mistaken basis that we are more solid than we are liquid, gas, or flame.

Humans are made mostly of Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen. All of these enter the biosphere from the atmosphere, or from water; not from soil, rocks, or 'earth'.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Really? Based on what?

Do you mean, when I said the conclusion that it requires a lot of time (or that life was actually created in the lab)?

Based on ... it hasn't been done .. yet (making life from non organic elements) the part missing in thought, has to be time (via various processes).

So, because it hasn't been seen in real time and documented by science, you don't believe it, or don't think it exists?

 

[Lion IRC]

So if you went to a museum of watches and clocks and other timekeeping devices, would you conclude that they were all designed by a single omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent entity that your sect worships as the One True God?

It ought to be evident that the designers of those watches are multiple, that they have finite capabilities, and that they are fallible. Since the designers of watches are multiple, finite, and fallible, we conclude that the designers of our planet's biota must also be multiple, finite, and fallible.

He knows all this already. He is feigning ignorance and stupidity to get a rise out of people.

It is rather odd that Lion attributes all sorts of magic to this sky critter but then points out that it couldn't make a watch. Only humans have the power to make such things.

You realise the 'watch' is an analogy right?

Ipetrich's watch museum would be a monument to design and beauty and creativity and intellectual property. etc.

You need to go back and read Paley's argument again if you think it implies that only a human can design something with form and function.

 

[skepticalbip]

It is rather odd that Lion attributes all sorts of magic to this sky critter but then points out that it couldn't make a watch. Only humans have the power to make such things.

You realise the 'watch' is an analogy right?

Ipetrich's watch museum would be a monument to design and beauty and creativity and intellectual property. etc.

You need to go back and read Paley's argument again if you think it implies that only a human can design something with form and function.

I understand perfectly. You point at something that was obviously designed and created such as watches, statues, etc. to illustrate that something that was designed required a designer. Then take an absurd illogical leap to claim that everything was designed (with absolutely no rational reason to assume such a thing) to prove an 'ultimate super designer'. It is sorta the ultimate god of the gaps argument (the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance) - exactly how life originated is unknown, therefore god.

I am constantly amused by the fact that theists actually believe that there are absolutely no unknowns... everything that anyone presents as an unknown can be explained as 'the will of god or god's plan', even though that expression explains nothing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You need to go back and read Paley's argument again if you think it implies that only a human can design something with form and function.

At one point, yes, it does. Not for long, but for a bit, there, that is the implication, and it's an important one.
It argues that we know the watch is an artifact because it is nothing like what we find in Nature. So that requires that form and function, thus design, is limited to man.
Watch =/= Nature.
Watch == Artifact.

Then, with no change in the watch OR in nature, we suddenly resolve that the universe IS just like the watch. Suddenly, the universe reflects design.

Artifact == Watch == Nature.


Of course, that voids our earlier conclusion that the watch was an artifact based on it being unlike Nature. Which means we can't leverage that now-errant conclusion to determine that Nature is an Artifact. So all in all, it's just a big waste of time, innit?

 

[skepticalbip]

Really? Based on what?

Do you mean, when I said the conclusion that it requires a lot of time (or that life was actually created in the lab)?

Based on ... it hasn't been done .. yet (making life from non organic elements) the part missing in thought, has to be time (via various processes).

The full life cycle of a star or even of a giant sequoia has not been created and studied in a lab either but both are pretty damn well understood.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Exactly. God waves hand, makes star. God waves hand, makes sequoia.

It’s easy to understand. I don’t know why people say science is hard.

 

[Learner]

We are not 'made from the earth' though. We are made from plants and water; And plants are made from air, water, and sunlight.

The fraction of any animal (including humans) that is made from 'earth', even in the broadest sense, is minuscule. The whole 'made from earth' thing is an error that pre-dates the Bible, and stems from the oversimplified 'earth, air, fire, water' system for attempting to understand reality - under that scheme, it is assumed that people are mostly earth, on the reasonable but completely mistaken basis that we are more solid than we are liquid, gas, or flame.

Humans are made mostly of Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen. All of these enter the biosphere from the atmosphere, or from water; not from soil, rocks, or 'earth'.

Really, so its not a fact then as according to Atrib? And so ...the remains left from once lived creatures should all really return to the states of gases and sunlight? (you seem to suggest)

Well of course there's a little more to it than just plain earth dust.

 

[Learner]

Really? Based on what?

Do you mean, when I said the conclusion that it requires a lot of time (or that life was actually created in the lab)?

Based on ... it hasn't been done .. yet (making life from non organic elements) the part missing in thought, has to be time (via various processes).

The full life cycle of a star or even of a giant sequoia has not been created and studied in a lab either but both are pretty damn well understood.

Yes, you can certainly see the stars ,in order to be able to deduce or assume from the other types of formations "available" to observe , whether they are thought to be either : early stages of star beginnngs or the latter stages of the star cycles. But thats it, in regards to life requiring plenty of unobserved time!

 

[bilby]

We are not 'made from the earth' though. We are made from plants and water; And plants are made from air, water, and sunlight.

The fraction of any animal (including humans) that is made from 'earth', even in the broadest sense, is minuscule. The whole 'made from earth' thing is an error that pre-dates the Bible, and stems from the oversimplified 'earth, air, fire, water' system for attempting to understand reality - under that scheme, it is assumed that people are mostly earth, on the reasonable but completely mistaken basis that we are more solid than we are liquid, gas, or flame.

Humans are made mostly of Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen. All of these enter the biosphere from the atmosphere, or from water; not from soil, rocks, or 'earth'.

Really, so its not a fact then as according to Atrib? And so ...the remains left from once lived creatures should all really return to the states of gases and sunlight? (you seem to suggest)

I suggest nothing. Anything you want to know about my position is either written in my posts, or requires you to ask me. If you get your understanding from your interpretation of whjat you imagine to be hints, then you are just going to be (even more) confused.

The remains left from once lived creatures are (by the definition of 'remains') the stuff that didn't immediately get eaten by scavengers, or by microorganisms. Mostly these are bone, which is still mostly C O H and N. Eventually, it all gets returned to water and gases, usually via a number of other living things; Fossils are typically minerals that take on the shapes of the tissues that decayed leaving an impression in the sediments that covered them, and are not parts of the dead animal at all.

Well of course there's a little more to it than just plain earth dust.

No, there's VASTLY more to it - there's so little "just plain earth dust" as to be practically negligible. Certainly it is deeply wrong to say that 'dust' is a major component of a human being. That's why cremation urns are so much smaller than coffins.

 

[Learner]

I suggest nothing. Anything you want to know about my position is either written in my posts, or requires you to ask me. If you get your understanding from your interpretation of whjat you imagine to be hints, then you are just going to be (even more) confused.

I was expecting you to repsond and clarify to (you seem to suggest) cheers BTW.

The remains left from once lived creatures are (by the definition of 'remains') the stuff that didn't immediately get eaten by scavengers, or by microorganisms. Mostly these are bone, which is still mostly C O H and N. Eventually, it all gets returned to water and gases, usually via a number of other living things; Fossils are typically minerals that take on the shapes of the tissues that decayed leaving an impression in the sediments that covered them, and are not parts of the dead animal at all.

I have no dispute with the detailed processes, and of course, Atrib was actually quite correct : "same elements found in nature, it is a fact" . I think we all agree here.

No, there's VASTLY more to it - there's so little "just plain earth dust" as to be practically negligible. Certainly it is deeply wrong to say that 'dust' is a major component of a human being. That's why cremation urns are so much smaller than coffins.

Sure , no probs with that. I use earth-dust generally speaking , as some scientists say "we are made from space-dust" (not needing to mention water and other details etc..).

 

[Worldtraveller]

The full life cycle of a star or even of a giant sequoia has not been created and studied in a lab either but both are pretty damn well understood.

Yes, you can certainly see the stars ,in order to be able to deduce or assume from the other types of formations "available" to observe , whether they are thought to be either : early stages of star beginnngs or the latter stages of the star cycles. But thats it, in regards to life requiring plenty of unobserved time!

So your assertion here is that if we can't see it actually happen, despite having a lot of time (maybe 70 years of good scientific experimentation), then there's no good reason to believe it?

Can you answer this as a yes or no (feel free to elucidate, but I'd like you to be clear)?

 

[atrib]

Its not a viewpoint that we are made from the same elements found in nature, it is a fact.

With the Christian belief system the magic is unspoken, and is the lack of explanation about the magical processes that created the creator god.
That's like believing that little Johnny down the street couldn't possibly have taught himself simple addition and subtraction at age 3, but your own newborn day old baby can solve the gravitational field equations including working out the manifold geometry of spacetime in the presence of complex energy distributions and local singularities. Only several orders of magnitude more ridiculous.

I meant, taking the viewpoint that "biblically" it says the same thing ... i.e. made from the earth.

It is absurdly hypocritical to believe that simple self replicating molecules could never arise through natural processes, but that a sophisticated, powerful god just conveniently happens to exist, no explanations needed.

Hypocritical? So if one reckons likewise, that its absurd that any Creator could have made those molecules, but philosophically or mathematically could however , make a variety of alternative theories, this would be the explanation(s) needed? Naturalistic magic?

You are babbling again.

Please go back and read my post again and try to address the point I was making.

1. Creationists don't believe that simple self-replicating molecules could have formed from undirected natural processes.
2. Creationists believe that an intelligent, sophisticated, all-powerful god arose somehow from undirected, natural processes.

Do you see the contradiction here?

 

[atrib]

It is rather odd that Lion attributes all sorts of magic to this sky critter but then points out that it couldn't make a watch. Only humans have the power to make such things.

You realise the 'watch' is an analogy right?

Ipetrich's watch museum would be a monument to design and beauty and creativity and intellectual property. etc.

You need to go back and read Paley's argument again if you think it implies that only a human can design something with form and function.

I understand perfectly. You point at something that was obviously designed and created such as watches, statues, etc. to illustrate that something that was designed required a designer. Then take an absurd illogical leap to claim that everything was designed (with absolutely no rational reason to assume such a thing) to prove an 'ultimate super designer'. It is sorta the ultimate god of the gaps argument (the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance) - exactly how life originated is unknown, therefore god.

I am constantly amused by the fact that theists actually believe that there are absolutely no unknowns... everything that anyone presents as an unknown can be explained as 'the will of god or god's plan', even though that expression explains nothing.

Not to mention, the watch stands out clearly as an object that was designed by an intelligent entity, in stark contrast to our natural world, the planet, the geology, the rivers, the vegetation etc. which do NOT appear to have been designed by an intelligent entity. Which is why the watch stands out as being different from the natural (non-intelligently-designed) universe we live in. Paley's argument undermines the very point it was built to make.