What would count as proof of God

[Elixir]

The second part. But how would one know, this couldn't be applied to atheists?

No. Here's the second part:

"no superstitious believer is going to be disabused of their delusion by an Internet forum discussion pointing out the vacuity of their argument for the existence of the object of their superstition."

There is no "object of [the atheist's] superstition. Certainly not in the realm of deities
THEY'RE ATHEISTS.
Maybe they believe in Santa Claus, but not Creator Gods.

 

[Jarhyn]

The second part. But how would one know, this couldn't be applied to atheists?

No. Here's the second part:

"no superstitious believer is going to be disabused of their delusion by an Internet forum discussion pointing out the vacuity of their argument for the existence of the object of their superstition."

There is no "object of [the atheist's] superstition. Certainly not in the realm of deities
THEY'RE ATHEISTS.
Maybe they believe in Santa Claus, but not Creator Gods.

Oh spare me. We have a couple threads now in "philosophical/other" where a number of folks are arguing hard determinism completely "atheistically". There are superstitious atheists whose superstition amounts to the same thing, except instead of giving their god a mind, they don't even give him that, they just pretend "causal necessity" when they utter it is somehow different in it's operational position in their cage of belief than "god's divine plan".

 

[Elixir]

What are the objects of those atheists’ superstitions? In the realm of Creator deities?

Godzes? If so I wouldn’t call them atheists.

I not really interested by determinism arguments so maybe I’m not getting what you’re saying.

 

[atrib]

Souls do not need material brains to exist as souls... They just need material brains to "live".

How does one detect a "dead" human soul, and how is a "dead" human soul different from a human soul that is "alive"?
What is a soul, and how do we go about detecting human souls?

I honestly did not understand most of what you said, and I am trying to figure it out.

 

[bilby]

Let me offer evidence of another belief and see if you accept the facts of evidence I offer is valid or if I'm just being illogical

Of course you're being illogical. You believe that there is an elephant in my fridge.

F1 Refrigerators exist
F2 I own a refrigerator
F3 Refrigerators contain things
F4 Chickens are things

I have chicken in the fridge. (non living)

What are the possibilties, if someone actually claims to have elephant in the fridge? Very little descriptive clarity, provided by you, on the state of the elephant.

Possiblity for such a claim if one dares to make...
Elephant steaks in the fridge?

All African elephants are included in Appendix I of CITES, except for the populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe, which are included in Appendix II.

All Asian elephants are currently listed in Appendix I of CITES

Cites sighted at CITES site:
https://cites.org/eng/news/Current_...vory_under_CITES_Proposals_CITES_CoP17_200716

 

[Jarhyn]

Souls do not need material brains to exist as souls... They just need material brains to "live".

How does one detect a "dead" human soul, and how is a "dead" human soul different from a human soul that is "alive"?
What is a soul, and how do we go about detecting human souls?

I honestly did not understand most of what you said, and I am trying to figure it out.

"Dead" is not a meaningful concept with relationship to "soul". You can't kill 5 by subtracting 2 from a quantity of 5. That's not how identity works.

"How does one detect a "dead" circuit diagram, and how is a "dead" circuit diagram different from a circuit diagram that is "alive"? What is a Circuit Diagram and how do we go about detecting Circuit Diagrams?"

"circuit diagram" is just the name we gave for a particular form of soul for a particular form of thing. A live "circuit diagram" is, in fact, the circuit! It is it's own identity as much as the diagram identified it.

 

[atrib]

Souls do not need material brains to exist as souls... They just need material brains to "live".

How does one detect a "dead" human soul, and how is a "dead" human soul different from a human soul that is "alive"?
What is a soul, and how do we go about detecting human souls?

I honestly did not understand most of what you said, and I am trying to figure it out.

"Dead" is not a meaningful concept with relationship to "soul". You can't kill 5 by subtracting 2 from a quantity of 5. That's not how identity works.

You stated that souls need material brains to "live", which would logically lead one to believe that there are souls that do not "live". Your answer sheds no light on the subject.
And you haven't told me what a soul is and how I can go about detecting human souls.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

No surprise to that answer. But do YOU understand the standard model can't tell you zilch? It can't tell you if there's ANY possibilty for a god to exist or not, soley based on the model. I would have thought it wise to think, and just say "we don't know, or couldn't know." Have an agnostic approach, once in a while.

So it's worthless because it can't tell us if the moon is made of cheese. Brilliant.

 

[Jarhyn]

Souls do not need material brains to exist as souls... They just need material brains to "live".

How does one detect a "dead" human soul, and how is a "dead" human soul different from a human soul that is "alive"?
What is a soul, and how do we go about detecting human souls?

I honestly did not understand most of what you said, and I am trying to figure it out.

"Dead" is not a meaningful concept with relationship to "soul". You can't kill 5 by subtracting 2 from a quantity of 5. That's not how identity works.

You stated that souls need material brains to "live", which would logically lead one to believe that there are souls that do not "live". Your answer sheds no light on the subject.
And you haven't told me what a soul is and how I can go about detecting human souls.

Human souls do. Let's imagine I pull out a piece of paper and draw a new circuit on it, a diagram of something that has never been instantiated or built in all of this universe.

It does not live. Not anywhere. But it is not dead, either. It just isn't alive.

And mea culpa for the edit but:

"How does one detect a "dead" circuit diagram, and how is a "dead" circuit diagram different from a circuit diagram that is "alive"? What is a Circuit Diagram and how do we go about detecting Circuit Diagrams?"

"circuit diagram" is just the name we gave for a particular form of soul for a particular form of thing. A live "circuit diagram" is, in fact, the circuit! It is it's own identity as much as the diagram identified it.

 

[Drew2008]

Any reply to my case for life on exoplanets?


Let me offer evidence of another belief and see if you accept the facts of evidence I offer is valid or if I'm just being illogical.

What would count as proof evidence life exists on planets outside our solar system?

F1. The universe exists

No universe no planets, stars, solar systems exist. For there to be life outside of our solar system a universe has to exist. The existence of the universe is evidence life exists on exoplanets.

F2. Planets and solar systems exist.

The fact planets exist in our solar system was for the longest time the only evidence we had from which we could infer other solar systems existed around other stars.

F3. The fact life exists on a planet revolving around a star

Of course. Why should we think it exists only on our planet. The fact it exists exponentially raises the possibility it exists on other planets.

All these things are true but it doesn't guarantee life exists elsewhere. All these facts are necessary for the claim to be true and they qualify as evidence in favor of the belief claim there is life on other planets. Is it irrational to believe life might exist on other planets?

Just three facts no leprechauns, pixies, fairy dust or loch ness monsters.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Just three facts no leprechauns, pixies, fairy dust or loch ness monsters.

Right. Just like gods those things wouldn't exist on other planets either. So four facts.

 

[Drew2008]

Drew's new claim: Video games exist - therefore god-did-it.

No I would say a video-game designer did it. What would you say... mindless forces did it accidentally? You should quit while you're only a mile behind.

 

[bilby]

Any reply to my case for life on exoplanets?


Let me offer evidence of another belief and see if you accept the facts of evidence I offer is valid or if I'm just being illogical.

What would count as proof evidence life exists on planets outside our solar system?

F1. The universe exists

No universe no planets, stars, solar systems exist. For there to be life outside of our solar system a universe has to exist. The existence of the universe is evidence life exists on exoplanets.

F2. Planets and solar systems exist.

The fact planets exist in our solar system was for the longest time the only evidence we had from which we could infer other solar systems existed around other stars.

F3. The fact life exists on a planet revolving around a star

Of course. Why should we think it exists only on our planet. The fact it exists exponentially raises the possibility it exists on other planets.

All these things are true but it doesn't guarantee life exists elsewhere. All these facts are necessary for the claim to be true and they qualify as evidence in favor of the belief claim there is life on other planets. Is it irrational to believe life might exist on other planets?

Just three facts no leprechauns, pixies, fairy dust or loch ness monsters.

No, you don't get to repeat your idiotic questions until you tell me whether you agree that there's an elephant in my fridge, and if not, why not.

If you expect others to dance to your tune while you do nothing when they play the music, you are going to live a life of sad and lonely disappointment.

Your idiotic non-evidence has been discussed at length. Now you need to explain why it's better than, or even just substantively different from, mine.

 

[pood]

None of the things you listed are EVIDENCE for life on other planets. The existence of the universe is a necessary CONDITION of life on other planets, but it is not a SUFFICIENT condition. Evidence, on the other hand, would be a radio signal from a distant civilization, or a biosignature in the atmosphere of another planet. We have no such evidence. None. Zilch. Nada.

The reason we think there is likely to be life on other planets is because there is life HERE. And there is nothing special about the earth. So far as we can tell, physics operates the same everywhere in the universe, and all chemistry and biology is derived from physics. So if life exists here, it would be extraordinary if it existed nowhere else, but it may indeed be very rare.

So: we know a universe exists but that is not evidence of life off earth. We know life exists but that is not evidence of life off earth. But we think it plausible that life exists elsewhere because a universe exists and life exists here.

This is completely different from your god stuff. We know life exists, here, but we don’t know a god exists ANYWHERE. There is no evidence for a god. The existence of the universe is not evidence for a god, any more than the existence of the universe is evidence for life off of the earth.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

No I would say a video-game designer did it. What would you say... mindless forces did it accidentally? You should quit while you're only a mile behind.

Drew's new claim: Video games exist - therefore god-did-it.

No I would say a video-game designer did it. What would you say... mindless forces did it accidentally? You should quit while you're only a mile behind.

Some people are claiming that mindless forces are proof of designers. I'm still trying to get my head around that contradiction. Maybe quit when you're still only light years behind?

 

[Gospel]

What Theist set that requirment? To my knowledge, Theism claims god comes before any creation, as such a universe existing is not required for a God to exist.

The definition of theism.

theism
[ˈTHēˌizəm]

NOUN

1. belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
   
   

That doesn't answer the question. That only supports my statement that a God came before the universe. How does a God create something without coming (in better words existing) before what it created?

One of your arguments is that Theism requires a universe and it doesn't accord to its (Theism's) own definition.

 

[Rhea]

God appears visually only in the last days.

According to your Bible, God showed his backside to the prophet Moses, and later God resided for over 30 years in western Asia before flying off into the sky.

Moreover, none of us cared whether the god is “visible,” we are asking for your specific claim of it interacting in any way; parting seas, healed releatives, punished people, turned storms, answered prayers of any kind.

I can see why you would try to narrow the entire description of your god to a single event that hasn’t happened yet, so that you can claim, “see? You can’t see it because it hasn’t happened yet!” But don’t gaslight yourself into think we don’t know the full claims of your gods and see them all vacant.

 

[Gospel]

Theism requires a god, not a universe bruh.

 

[Rhea]

Let me offer evidence of another belief and see if you accept the facts of evidence I offer is valid or if I'm just being illogical.

You are being illogical. In exactly the same way that we’ve already explained that you were illogical before.
Your argument is not sound.

I can see that you think it is very very compelling, and it has convinced you completely while you are unable to see the gaping holes.

Interestingly, instead of understandng the holes, you just keep repeating the claim, as if that makes it any better than the first time. It’s the same claim as the first time, and it is illogical, as noted. In detail.

 

[Gospel]

Any reply to my case for life on exoplanets?


Let me offer evidence of another belief and see if you accept the facts of evidence I offer is valid or if I'm just being illogical.

What would count as proof evidence life exists on planets outside our solar system?

F1. The universe exists

No universe no planets, stars, solar systems exist. For there to be life outside of our solar system a universe has to exist. The existence of the universe is evidence life exists on exoplanets.

F2. Planets and solar systems exist.

The fact planets exist in our solar system was for the longest time the only evidence we had from which we could infer other solar systems existed around other stars.

F3. The fact life exists on a planet revolving around a star

Of course. Why should we think it exists only on our planet. The fact it exists exponentially raises the possibility it exists on other planets.

All these things are true but it doesn't guarantee life exists elsewhere. All these facts are necessary for the claim to be true and they qualify as evidence in favor of the belief claim there is life on other planets. Is it irrational to believe life might exist on other planets?

Just three facts no leprechauns, pixies, fairy dust or loch ness monsters.

Inferred does not = fact. That's the difference between Atheism and Theism. One states a faith-based belief as fact and the other doesn't (Edit: well not exactly in the same way ).

 

[abaddon]

Inferred does not = fact. That's the difference between Atheism and Theism. One states a faith-based belief as fact and the other doesn't

The difference is the concern about epistemology among atheists, and the lack of it among theists.

Atheists: What's your justification for believing that?
Theists: What won't serve as justification if I want it to?

Theists start with belief and then work backwards for some evidence. Then complain "you atheists are dogmatic assholes for not accepting that I have evidence for my belief".

They put on a display of fake agnosticism "Nobody knows so my belief should work as well or better than any other". It's a show of being "openminded" though everyone knows the belief's installed already.

They can't comprehend analogies. Mention something like the Invisible Pink Unicorn and they'll ALWAYS respond with an irrelevant protest: "My god is nothing like an invisible pink unicorn!" The atheists are asking "why believe either IPU or God if they're both not detectable?" But theists always mistake it for a declaration "your god is silly like unicorns are". The actual point ("why believe?") isn't a concern when the believing is already a done-deal for them. When that's the case it becomes a matter of comparing beliefs instead of wondering at the reasons to believe.

Atheists are those who didn't dream up a reason to believe, and didn't accept anyone else's lame reasons. So we puzzle at the people who did.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The guys i'm playing cards with have revealed their hands, and Joe's is a Straight Flush: A Jack-high straight, all of the cards in Hearts. To win this deal, i need to have a Royal Flush, preferably in Spades. (There is no actual precedence in suits, but the accepted wisdom is that Spades outrank Hearts (which outrank Diamonds which outrank Clubs), so it's just easier).
Fact one: Spades exist in the deck we're using.
Fact two: None of the hands revealed wo far display any of the cards I need for my Royal Flush.
Fact three: Tom dealt this hand and Tom hates John. Not saying Tom cheats, but Tom would not intentionally give John the winning hand if he could avoid it.
Fact four: There is about $600 in the pot. I need about $600 to fix something on my car.

With these facts in mind, i would say it is very likely that i have a Royal Flush. My having a Royal Flush is far more likely than my having no better than a pair of twos.

 

[Elixir]

The guys i'm playing cards with have revealed their hands, and Joe's is a Straight Flush: A Jack-high straight, all of the cards in Hearts. To win this deal, i need to have a Royal Flush, preferably in Spades. (There is no actual precedence in suits, but the accepted wisdom is that Spades outrank Hearts (which outrank Diamonds which outrank Clubs), so it's just easier).
Fact one: Spades exist in the deck we're using.
Fact two: None of the hands revealed wo far display any of the cards I need for my Royal Flush.
Fact three: Tom dealt this hand and Tom hates John. Not saying Tom cheats, but Tom would not intentionally give John the winning hand if he could avoid it.
Fact four: There is about $600 in the pot. I need about $600 to fix something on my car.

With these facts in mind, i would say it is very likely that i have a Royal Flush. My having a Royal Flush is far more likely than my having no better than a pair of twos.

As long as nobody turns over their cards, you’re all good.

 

[Rhea]

As long as nobody turns over their cards, you’re all good.

And that’s the trick, innit. Never turn over your cards, and you can say you’re a god.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The guys i'm playing cards with have revealed their hands, and Joe's is a Straight Flush: A Jack-high straight, all of the cards in Hearts. To win this deal, i need to have a Royal Flush, preferably in Spades. (There is no actual precedence in suits, but the accepted wisdom is that Spades outrank Hearts (which outrank Diamonds which outrank Clubs), so it's just easier).
Fact one: Spades exist in the deck we're using.
Fact two: None of the hands revealed wo far display any of the cards I need for my Royal Flush.
Fact three: Tom dealt this hand and Tom hates John. Not saying Tom cheats, but Tom would not intentionally give John the winning hand if he could avoid it.
Fact four: There is about $600 in the pot. I need about $600 to fix something on my car.

With these facts in mind, i would say it is very likely that i have a Royal Flush. My having a Royal Flush is far more likely than my having no better than a pair of twos.

As long as nobody turns over their cards, you’re all good.

Thry already did. My opening line.
But never mind that.
It's always about results with you guys. I'm not showng that i HAVE a RoyF'sh. I just want to show that it's not unreasonable for me to believe i have a RF at this time.
Showing my cards only convinces these fools, who lack the logical skills to apprehend the true state of affairs, while i remain confident even without turning them over.

 

[steve_bank]

God is a talking point.

A story from India I read. A guru lectures his students that god isin them, the rocks, animals, everything. Filled with bliss a student walks away down a path. He sees an elephant runnng at him and thinks if god is in me and god is in the elephant I have nothingto fear.

The elephant grabs him with its trnk and tosses him aside.

Bewildered he asks the guru what happened.

The guru said ' The god in the elephant was telling the god in you to get out of the way, and you were not listening'.

 

[Jarhyn]

God is a talking point.

A story from India I read. A guru lectures his students that god isin them, the rocks, animals, everything. Filled with bliss a student walks away down a path. He sees an elephant runnng at him and thinks if god is in me and god is in the elephant I have nothingto fear.

The elephant grabs him with its trnk and tosses him aside.

Bewildered he asks the guru what happened.

The guru said ' The god in the elephant was telling the god in you to get out of the way, and you were not listening'.

There are some tie-ins on this to the "determinism" threads.

 

[Learner]

I'll cease it here, before it becomes a toing and froing - you have a point of view, fair enough..

I am from a working class backgound. I was one of those kids, that loved school dinners lol, speaking od dinners I smell burning.

There is no shame in not knowing stuff. It is impossible for a single human to know everything about everything that humans as a group know. But if you want to challenge skeptics, you have to educate yourself on what they say. You can't just make up stuff.

Indeed there's no shame when it is indeed the case. And (I'm sorry I need to say here) when it comes to pride or ego (or having some personal grudge) by falsely ascribing "making things up" to someone, who isn't - would just make you look a little foolish, especially by the person, who has to educate himself.

So...

Did I ever make any claim that Egnor said anything about souls in his talk? You were so eager, to make the false statement, you bypassed that bit of logic, which should have told you: "There's is no evidence for me saying it, therefore I can't quote it directly." Common Sense?
Or did you try and bluff it?

 

[atrib]

I'll cease it here, before it becomes a toing and froing - you have a point of view, fair enough..

I am from a working class backgound. I was one of those kids, that loved school dinners lol, speaking od dinners I smell burning.

There is no shame in not knowing stuff. It is impossible for a single human to know everything about everything that humans as a group know. But if you want to challenge skeptics, you have to educate yourself on what they say. You can't just make up stuff.

Indeed there's no shame when it is indeed the case. And (I'm sorry I need to say here) when it comes to pride or ego (or having some personal grudge) by falsely ascribing "making things up" to someone, who isn't - would just make you look a little foolish, especially by the person, who has to educate himself.

So...

Did I ever make any claim that Egnor said anything about souls in his talk? You were so eager, to make the false statement, you bypassed that bit of logic, which should have told you: "There's is no evidence for me saying it, therefore I can't quote it directly." Common Sense?
Or did you try and bluff it?

You didn't say anything in your post. You just posted a link to a video that we had discussed previously, and I pointed out that the video did not support the claim you were making at that (earlier) time.

Why don't you explain what your point was, and how the video supports whatever claim you want to make, so we can discuss it. Post the timestamp for the part of the video we should be looking at, because I am not going to spend another half hour viewing a video I have already watched once. I can't read your mind - I need to know what your specific position is, and how the video supports this position. This is not an unreasonable request. Several people have asked you to do this, but so far you have declined to clarify.

 

[Rhea]

For the record: it is a violation of the forum rules to post links without discussion.

Clarification of Rule 9:
9. Not derail threads or detract from board discussions;

Posts which consist of little else besides a link to another document or video are not 'discussion', and are considered disruptive. Links provided in support of one's position are fine, but one is obliged to summarize or paraphrase the relevant point in their own words and in-thread. The posts should contain an argument or refutation, or at least a description with personal commentary, and not be mere links with some cut-n-paste quotation(s). In other words, post your thoughts and not just other people's thoughts.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

We're living in a scientific age. and there is no scientific evidence for ghosts or ghosts called gods. And if something cannot be scientifically demonstrated it isn't real. Maybe it's a good idea but it isn't real until facts come along.

Our courts rely on science to determine judgement. We don't gather there to pray to invisible ghosts to give us answers. Instead we seek out hard evidence, we use forensics and we weigh the facts.

Even the most hardcore believers rely on scientific fact everyday of their lives to survive. If they stop doing so they die. So science rules. In the end, gods are nothing more than mental legacy pollution form earlier times.

 

[bilby]

Our courts rely on science to determine judgement

On a good day, perhaps, a bit.

Mostly our courts rely on persuading a dozen random citizens to believe one convincing liar over the other, by whatever means the judge allows them to get away with.

That sometimes they can employ science (or science-like and science-adjacent arguments) as part of that persuasion is a good thing; But it's very much not the same thing as "rely[ing] on science to determine judgement".

 

[Ephesians]

So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?

I thought of something that would be rather compelling. Suppose one day every person on the planet simultaneously saw the face and heard the voice of God in the sky. That voice simultaneously declared to every human some personal fact unknown to anyone but that person, then also told them some personal fact unknown to anyone about a total stranger they never met along with that person's contact information so they could verify it. It wouldn't be surprising to for those who already believe to claim both facts they were told are accurate. But this would mean that every non-believing human would also verify their unique facts, which means many millions of people worldwide. While mass hallucinations can occur, they do so b/c all the people are within a particular shared context and frame of mind. That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural, either God or at least some moment of unified psychic type consciousness.

Would you find this convincing? If not, what alternative explanation could you give?

The existence of an apparently designed universe like ours.

 

[pood]

So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?

I thought of something that would be rather compelling. Suppose one day every person on the planet simultaneously saw the face and heard the voice of God in the sky. That voice simultaneously declared to every human some personal fact unknown to anyone but that person, then also told them some personal fact unknown to anyone about a total stranger they never met along with that person's contact information so they could verify it. It wouldn't be surprising to for those who already believe to claim both facts they were told are accurate. But this would mean that every non-believing human would also verify their unique facts, which means many millions of people worldwide. While mass hallucinations can occur, they do so b/c all the people are within a particular shared context and frame of mind. That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural, either God or at least some moment of unified psychic type consciousness.

Would you find this convincing? If not, what alternative explanation could you give?

The existence of an apparently designed universe like ours.

Living things are also apparently designed (implying a designer) but it turns out they evolved. No designer needed.

Is the universe even apparently designed? Apparently not, unless, perhaps, the designer had a liking for empty space. Ninety-nine percent of the universe is empty space, lethal to all life and utterly uninteresting. To be fair, it‘s not really empty — it’s full of virtual particles, fields, etc. — but for human purposes it‘s a void wasteland.

Funny kind of thing to “design.”

 

[Ephesians]

So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?

I thought of something that would be rather compelling. Suppose one day every person on the planet simultaneously saw the face and heard the voice of God in the sky. That voice simultaneously declared to every human some personal fact unknown to anyone but that person, then also told them some personal fact unknown to anyone about a total stranger they never met along with that person's contact information so they could verify it. It wouldn't be surprising to for those who already believe to claim both facts they were told are accurate. But this would mean that every non-believing human would also verify their unique facts, which means many millions of people worldwide. While mass hallucinations can occur, they do so b/c all the people are within a particular shared context and frame of mind. That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural, either God or at least some moment of unified psychic type consciousness.

Would you find this convincing? If not, what alternative explanation could you give?

The existence of an apparently designed universe like ours.

Living things are also apparently designed (implying a designer) but it turns out they evolved. No designer needed.

Is the universe even apparently designed? Apparently not, unless, perhaps, the designer had a liking for empty space. Ninety-nine percent of the universe is empty space, lethal to all life and utterly uninteresting. To be fair, it‘s not really empty — it’s full of virtual particles, fields, etc. — but for human purposes it‘s a void wasteland.

Funny kind of thing to “design.”

That's like arguing that a car is only apparently designed because it was in fact created by a car factory. No car designer needed.

There is no reason to presume evolution, like the car factory, wasn't designed.

 

[pood]

A car factory was also designed — for the purpose of designing and producing cars.

Evolution is a mindless stochastic process fueled by random mutation, natural selection and genetic drift.

You’re making the usual mistake about design, identified by David Hume even before Darwin came along. We see a house, a car, we know someone designed it, because we have seen people designing and building these things, for specified purposes. No one has ever seen anyone or anything design or build a universe.

 

[Ephesians]

A car factory was also designed — for the purpose of designing and producing cars.

Evolution is a mindless stochastic process fueled by random mutation, natural selection and genetic drift.

You’re making the usual mistake about design, identified by David Hume even before Darwin came along. We see a house, a car, we know someone designed it, because we have seen people designing and building these things, for specified purposes. No one has ever seen anyone or anything design or build a universe.

You missed the point. The universe looks designed; therefore, one should think it is designed until there is a defeater for this appearance.

You then brought up how biological life looks designed too. I agree. You then tried to use evolution as a defeater for this appearance--but it can't be used as a defeater because evolution in and of itself looks designed as well, in the same way a car factory looks designed.

 

[pood]

Evolution naturally, without intent or design, occurs when two conditions are fulfilled: reproduction with variation in diverse and ever-changing environments. Both those conditions are fulfilled, therefore evolution happens.

As to the universe, to me, it does not look designed, unless, as noted, the designer prefers empty space. But even if it did look designed, or looks designed to you, your conclusion that we should think of it as designed is a non sequitur, as explained hundreds of years ago by Hume.

 

[Ephesians]

Evolution naturally, without intent or design, occurs when two conditions are fulfilled: reproduction with variation in diverse and ever-changing environments. Both those conditions are fulfilled, therefore evolution happens.

But there's no reason to presume evolution isn't designed. You keep missing that point. In fact, it looks designed. Therefore, one should presume it is designed until there's a defeater for this appearance.

As to the universe, to me, it does not look designed

At least that's consistent. Because it'd be awfully strange for somebody to think that evolution and the universe itself is apparently designed while holding onto the belief that it is in fact not designed, without any good defeater for this appearance of design.

unless, as noted, the designer prefers empty space

I don't see this as a good defeater because what is 'a lot of empty space' to an omniscient and omnipresent mind? To you there may be a lot of empty space. My room is pretty cluttered right now, but to an ant there would be a lot of empty space.

And if we're talking about an intelligent mind, then let's not forget intent, creativity, and artistic expression. There may be a lot of empty space for artistic reasons. Or God may have wanted to illicit wonder or the feeling that we are small. Who knows?

Most important, the empty space doesn't explain away all of the intelligible processes in the universe that have the appearance of design.

your conclusion that we should think of it as designed is a non sequitur

Obviously not. If we met in person, I'd believe you to be human and not a figment of my imagination based on appearances and presuppositions alone! But if I were given a good defeater for my belief, then I'd change my mind.

 

[pood]

Evolution does not look designed. I’ve already explained that.

The rest is just bafflegab. Much of this thread has been devoted to explaining why the existence of the universe cannot serve as evidence of a creator. I suggest you read those posts from myself and others, as I doubt anyone here is eager to repeat him or herself for the sake of an eager-beaver noob with a religious fantasy.

 

[pood]

In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?

 

[Politesse]

In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?

Wouldn't one anticipate chaos, if anything?

 

[Elixir]

it looks designed. Therefore, one should presume it is designed until there's a defeater for this appearance.

Uh.. the bible looks fictional. Therefore, one should presume it is fictional until there's a defeater for this appearance.

 

[Ephesians]

it looks designed. Therefore, one should presume it is designed until there's a defeater for this appearance.

Uh.. the bible looks fictional. Therefore, one should presume it is fictional until there's a defeater for this appearance.

To most people, it doesn't look fictional. Moreover, you never gave a reason for thinking it looks fictional. The universe looks designed because it's filled with rationally intelligible processes.

 

[Ephesians]

Evolution does not look designed. I’ve already explained that.

Yes it does, which is why we're able to rationally discern it, explain it, make predictions, etc.

If evolution were apparently undersigned, arbitrary, or chaotic, then one would think it'd be extremely difficult to understand if not impossible to understand, explain, and predict.

The rest is just bafflegab

That's a pretty bad argument, bro. My faith in God has just grown 10-fold. Are you mad?

 

[Elixir]

To most people, it doesn't look fictional.

Bzzzzt. No need to read further. That's bullshit.
Show your "work".*

*2.3 billion (the most generous and inclusive estimate) is less than a third of all people.

 

[Ephesians]

To most people, it doesn't look fictional.

Bzzzzt. No need to read further. That's bullshit.
Show your "work".*

*2.3 billion (the most generous and inclusive estimate) is less than a third of all people.

Atheists and people who think the Bible is fiction are in the minority. You're about as numerous as the flat earthers.

 

[Elixir]

Atheists and people who think the Bible is fiction are in the minority. You're about as numerous as the flat earthers.

Hogwash. Look and learn:



And meanwhile, "According to YouGov’s report, when asked, “Do you believe that the world is round or flat,” 2 percent of the 8,215 respondents chose “I have always believed the world is flat.”"

So, your claim is bullshit.
Plus, most flat earthers ARE Christians - prove me wrong!

 

[Ephesians]

Atheists and people who think the Bible is fiction are in the minority. You're about as numerous as the flat earthers.

Hogwash. Look and learn:

View attachment 36656

And meanwhile, "According to YouGov’s report, when asked, “Do you believe that the world is round or flat,” 2 percent of the 8,215 respondents chose “I have always believed the world is flat.”"

So, your claim is bullshit.

You should learn how to read pie charts. Lul.

How does 'unaffiliated' equate to 'I think the Bible is fiction.' It doesn't even equate to agnosticism or atheism. And a Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or a person who is into 'folk religion' may not think the Bible is fiction.

That was easy.

 

[Ephesians]

Atheists and people who think the Bible is fiction are in the minority. You're about as numerous as the flat earthers.

Hogwash. Look and learn:

View attachment 36656

And meanwhile, "According to YouGov’s report, when asked, “Do you believe that the world is round or flat,” 2 percent of the 8,215 respondents chose “I have always believed the world is flat.”"

So, your claim is bullshit.
Plus, most flat earthers ARE Christians - prove me wrong!

According to Encyclopædia Britannica 2007, 2.3% of the world identifies as atheist.
According to YouGov, 2% of 8,215 respondents chose, "I have always believed the world is flat."

Damn I'm good.