Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Pogo]

Yes. The basis of the predictability of the processes of genetic mutations is based on chemistry, and confirmed by objective observations.

Chemistry limits the range of possible outcome of any single genetic mutation, and the range of outcomes of a series of cause and effect outcome of the chain or collective outcomes of genetic mutations.

So random with the caveat that we are not talking about HO2 and the like.

 

[leroy]

I've never seen an argument by theists for their various versions of God that aren't obviously flawed. As for Kalam, from Wiki, we have:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Both premises are wrong.

Both premises are wrong.

Really, do you really think that things can come in to existence without a cause?

Within the universe, we have quantum phenomena like vacuum fluctuations.

Are you saying that at a quantum level particles come in to existence without a cause? (which would be wrong)

Then the universe, (space-time) did not begin to exist, even if time is finite in the past (as I've kept on trying to explain to you).

That is just a smeantic issue………… the point is that the age of the universe is likely finite,. (there was a first moment)……agree?

If you think that “begin” to exist in not an appropriate term, feel free to use any other term……….a premise doesn’t fail, just because it doesn’t accommodate to your semantic preferences

It then gets worse:

1. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

Yes, that is a logical deduction that is necesairly true……………for example the cause of “time” by defintio and by logical necessity has to be “timeless”

1. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

Even if we accepted the first part, the jump to "personal Creator" is just silly.

well arguenents are typically provided for why it most be a "personal creator"................what is wrong with those arguemnts?

this is the argument provided for why it most be a "personal creator"..................why does the arguemnt fails

Finally, Ghazali argued that this Uncaused First Cause must also be a personal being. It’s the only way to explain how an eternal cause can produce an effect with a beginning like the universe.

Here’s the problem: If a cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then if the cause is there, the effect must be there, too. For example, the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0 degrees Celsius. If the temperature has been below 0 degrees from eternity, then any water around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn’t the universe permanently there as well? Why did the universe come into being only 14 billion years ago? Why isn’t it as permanent as its cause?

Ghazali maintained that the answer to this problem is that the First Cause must be a personal being endowed with freedom of the will. His creating the universe is a free act which is independent of any prior determining conditions. So his act of creating can be something spontaneous and new. Freedom of the will enables one to get an effect with a beginning from a permanent, timeless cause. Thus, we are brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe but to its Personal Creator. The Kalam Cosmological Argument | Reasonable Faith

 

[leroy]

What is the argument for an external causal source?

I don’t think there is an external cause for the evolution of organism….under my view organisms evolve through both complex and simple natural mechanisms………………….obviously at a ultimate level I believe in a God who created such natural mechanisms

 

[leroy]

Ok, then it is just another example of your almost total lack of understanding of the subject and the words used in context.

You know that random function on your computer, guess what it is not, it is not even close.
A complete description would probably take a book, but for almost any purpose except actually troubleshooting a program that uses it, random is sufficiently accurate.

Sometimes mutations that would help the organism are more likely to occur….. This by definition is the opposite of random

 

[ratiocinator]

Are you saying that at a quantum level particles come in to existence without a cause? (which would be wrong)

I mean there is no cause for a specific particle to appear at a specific time.

That is just a smeantic issue………… the point is that the age of the universe is likely finite,. (there was a first moment)……agree?

It's not semantics. And we don't know if the age of the universe is finite or not. There are, hypotheses that would say that time is continuous through the BB but changes direction, so it's the future in both time direction from the BB.

If you think that “begin” to exist in not an appropriate term, feel free to use any other term……….a premise doesn’t fail, just because it doesn’t accommodate to your semantic preferences

You're (unconsciously?) stuck in Newtonian thinking, again. In GR, the space-time manifold cannot 'begin to exist' regardless of whether the past is infinite or not. It is a four-dimensional object that 'just exists'.

 

[leroy]

The discussion you are having over the meaning of 'some' is what I think of as an invitation down a rabbit hole. It is much like the rabbit hole that @leroy has been trying to coax me down to argue over the meaning of 'seems'. The argument diverges straight from the issue at hand that is relevant to discuss and turns into what I see as amounting to an argument about nothing. It isn't my problem that others have reading comprehension issues. Or want that to somehow considered a hit against science, because they lack anything substantial to say that would hold up as valid criticism.

On the other hand, if your interest is in how people come to think about and consider seemingly meaningless details as worthwhile to propagate and proliferate and even consider as some sort of challenge to the sciences, I can certainly see a reason to be interested in that. Unfortunately, I don't know that an argument over what seems to be an inability to admit error might be as useful an opportunity as confusion over categorization and proportion.

Seems I can't figure out how some of this will lead to comprehension. Some may get it. Some may not. Some never will. Or so it seems.

Well based on what do you affirm that I don’t “seems” to admit mistakes?......where is the evidence? That led to that conclusion.

Given the lack of an answer…………..it seems to me that you are just making things up……

 

[leroy]

Causality is a phenomenon of physics. The physics of the universe.
It is no different then trying to invoke chemistry in a context where there are no chemically active elements.

Again, not granted, I don’t grant that causality is a phenomena exclusive for physics………………..but rather a necessary phenomenon that applies in all possible worlds and all possible realities.

Pretty much like 1+1=2 is true in all possible worlds and such truth is not dependant on the laws of physics……. I would argue that causality also falls in to that category

I might be wrong perhaps you are correct……………………but the issue is that you have to support it……….”just because I say so” is not enough

 

[Pogo]

Well then in my opinion it is misleading to say that we know how the eye evolved……………..you can´t really provide a viable step by step path………(meaning 1 generation steps)

Im am not interested in a fight, this is just my opinion, my own personal opinion is that the average “internet evolutionists” misleads the reader with respect to what scientists actually say.............Don’t worry I take the blame…………..maybe I am the one who is misunderstanding what internet evolutionists actually say

The average internet reader can understand how to bake a cake from a recipe without specific instructions about how to open drawers and pick up utensils etc. They know from general knowledge of the subject that these types of steps will be used without them being specified every time. You are not going to find your desired level of detail like which spoon was used for measuring the sugar and its location in the kitchen for Queen Victoria's wedding cake anywhere, but if you really want to understand, you can probably figure out how the icing rosettes were probably formed given the possible tools of the time by reading the research into cake baking in scholarly journals.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well and what is wrong with the arguments commonly provided by theists………say William lane creig´s version of the kalam cosmological argument ? (o pick any other common argument)

The Kalam cosmological argument suffers from the same faults as all oldy moldy apologetic argument based on premises that 'source' exists beyond our cause and effect physical existence or what some call our universe. Also the problem of the limited knowledge of science in the ancient world. They are in effect circular arguments for believers who believe. I have gone over this in detail in previous threads with references. I will repeat these references and rebuttal in detail if needed.

The major assumption of Kalam's cosmological argument that it describes the universe in terms of an actual infinity and concludes it is impossible to come about without a "Source" outside our physical existence. First, Actual Infinity is are described as closed infinite sets and yes likely may not exist, it does not take into consideration that our physical existence may be potentially infinite, which roughly fits the current view of cosmology of a boundless universe,

 

[Pogo]

Sometimes mutations that would help the organism are more likely to occur….. This by definition is the opposite of random

Whoosh, but since you have claimed this exception, present one with the chain of causality.

 

[leroy]

I mean there is no cause for a specific particle to appear at a specific time.

Ok, but that doesn’t imply that things can come in to existence without a cause………………….do you think that things can come in to existence without a cause? Yes or no?............if you dont answer directly with a clear and unambiguous “YES” I will assume that your answer is NO (which would imply that you accept premise 1)

It's not semantics. And we don't know if the age of the universe is finite or not. There are, hypotheses that would say that time is continuous through the BB but changes direction, so it's the future in both time direction from the BB.

WELL what is wrogn with the 4 arguments described by WLC in favor of a finite past?................or pick one and explain why it fails


You also ignoring the previous request……………..what is wrong with the arguments in support of a personal creator?



Here is the issue, people like WLC don’t claim “it´s true because I say so” they provide reasons and evidence in support for each premise and step of the argument………………..you might disagree. …you might think that the evidence if false, fallacious or wrong……….. but you have to support it

You're (unconsciously?) stuck in Newtonian thinking, again. In GR, the space-time manifold cannot 'begin to exist' regardless of whether the past is infinite or not. It is a four-dimensional object that 'just exists'.

Again begin to exist simply means that there was a first moment (or moments)……such that there was no “before” that moment of time………..this is also explained in detail I the source that I shared prissily to avoid semantic tricks

 

[shunyadragon]

Again, not granted, I don’t grant that causality is a phenomena exclusive for physics………………..but rather a necessary phenomenon that applies in all possible worlds and all possible realities.

Yes, there are possibilities of other worlds, but they at present only have subjective claims beyond the causality of physics,

Pretty much like 1+1=2 is true in all possible worlds and such truth is not dependant on the laws of physics……. I would argue that causality also falls in to that category,

Math is not dependent on the causality of physics. Math is our logic system to describe our world. 1+1=2 is simply a base ten construction of the logic system of math.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok, so do you claim that a world view that includes naturalism is better supported by the evidence than theism? (yes or no)


if yes, then you have aburden proof

I accept the existence of things that are observable, measurable and demonstrable in some way.
I try not to make claims about things that don't fit that description.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don’t think there is an external cause for the evolution of organism….under my view organisms evolve through both complex and simple natural mechanisms………………….obviously at a ultimate level I believe in a God who created such natural mechanisms

My question was directed at the problem of claims at the ultimate level. ie the problematic apologetic arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological argument addressed in post #2.789

 

[SkepticThinker]

ok if agnostic is not a proper word-----------then what would the proper word for this possition ? “I dont know and I have no reason to think that one view is more likely to be true than the other”


And even more important, does that position represents you?

If you hold the view that the existence of god(s) is unknown and/or unknowable, then you might be an agnostic.
Whether or not you believe in a god is a question of a/theism.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, you did that before. You never answered that time and I guess you won't either this time around.

I'm sorry. The subject is Descartes and demons?

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok, but that doesn’t imply that things can come in to existence without a cause………………….do you think that things can come in to existence without a cause? Yes or no?............if you dont answer directly with a clear and unambiguous “YES” I will assume that your answer is NO (which would imply that you accept premise 1)

The possibility that our physical existence is potentially infinite and di not have a cause outside our physical existence. The Natural Laws are simply a part of the nature of our physical existence that may be infinite and eternal, except for the possibility of the current view of a 'boundless existence without time. The Quantum World based on Quantum Mechanics has no known boundary or beginning.

Again begin to exist simply means that there was a first moment (or moments)……such that there was no “before” that moment of time………..this is also explained in detail I the source that I shared prissily to avoid semantic tricks

This is reflected in the faulty Kalam argument and failing to acknowledge the possibility that our physical existence is potentially infinite by definition.

 

[YoursTrue]

The justification of Intelligent Design is heavily based the belief that the nature of the process of genetic mutation is fundamentally random and cannot come about naturally, which justifies their unethical use of statistical probability to show that natural evolution is impossible based on the work of the Discovery Institute.

What Is Intelligent Design?

Chances are if you’ve heard anything about intelligent design, you’ve heard that it’s faith-based, not science-based. Is that true? Or does modern science, in fact, point us in the direction of a…

www.discovery.org

Yet to date no theory of undirected chemical evolution can explain the origin of the digital information needed to build the first living cell from simpler non-living chemicals — in other words, the problem of getting life from non-life.

I've always wondered about that. Cells have structure...what, they popped up? Talk about magic, hmm?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm sorry. The subject is Descartes and demons?

Just read about it as per "Descartes' evil demon". Remember it is about doubt.

 

[leroy]

The average internet reader can understand how to bake a cake from a recipe without specific instructions about how to open drawers and pick up utensils etc. They know from general knowledge of the subject that these types of steps will be used without them being specified every time. You are not going to find your desired level of detail like which spoon was used for measuring the sugar and its location in the kitchen for Queen Victoria's wedding cake anywhere, but if you really want to understand, you can probably figure out how the icing rosettes were probably formed given the possible tools of the time by reading the research into cake baking in scholarly journals.

You are wrong, the reason for why I won’t find that level of detail it because nobody knows those details (except for you apparently)