Irony of the evolutionary belief

[leroy]

I'll answer that -- though it wasn't addressed to me.

Yes, of course I would accept that as evidence for God.

Now, what do you make out of the fact that it has never happened?

Well that is analogous to the FT argument.

1 There are many possible ways in which stars can exist, but only one or few combinations would look like a meaningful text.

Analogous to

2 There are many possible values in the constants and initial conditions of the universe, but only one or few combinations would produce a life permitting universe.

So if you accept the first argument as evidence, you should also accept the second argument

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since you are unable to answer question I will simply keep repeating the question

If the stars suddenly rearrange to spell the words “I exists” sincerely the God of the bible………….would you accept that as evidence for God,? would you at least accept that as evidence for design? Yes no why?

It would probably not be evidence for a God. Part of the problem is that you have not considered all of the possible alternatives. Did you see the movie "A Beautiful Mind"? It was about John Nash, a mathematician that suffered from mental illness. In the movie he got into the habit of asking others if what he saw was real at times. I do not know if this was accurate, he had his won way with dealing with hearing voices. Movies do take liberties. But what you are describing is so irrational that the odds are that the most likely explanation would be that it was a delusion. I am not saying that all people that have "seen God" are mentally ill, but that could be the case.

John Forbes Nash Jr. - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is a good example of the problem with not being able to form a rational argument. That also affects your ability to come up with even possible evidence for your argument.

 

[leroy]

I'll answer that -- though it wasn't addressed to me.

Yes, of course I would accept that as evidence for God.

Now, what do you make out of the fact that it has never happened?

Well that is analogous to the FT argument.

1 There are many possible ways in which stars can exist, but only one or few combinations would look like a meaningful text.

Analogous to

2 There are many possible values in the constants and initial conditions of the universe, but only one or few combinations would produce a life permitting universe.

So if you accept the first argument as evidence, you should also accept the second argument

 

[Pogo]

Since you are unable to answer question I will simply keep repeating the question

If the stars suddenly rearrange to spell the words “I exists” sincerely the God of the bible………….would you accept that as evidence for God,? would you at least accept that as evidence for design? Yes no why?

I would think about it when I see it, till then why would anyone waste their time on conjectures like this?

 

[Pogo]

Well that is analogous to the FT argument.

1 There are many possible ways in which stars can exist, but only one or few combinations would look like a meaningful text.

Analogous to

2 There are many possible values in the constants and initial conditions of the universe, but only one or few combinations would produce a life permitting universe.

So if you accept the first argument as evidence, you should also accept the second argument

We don't even know if the universe is fine tuned or even what tuning means, and if it is, what that might mean. That is it, anything else you add is meaningless except to yourself.
Do barbelschnocks etoh ynos?

 

[leroy]

My Answers.
You don't without knowing what the designer can do. You are assuming a designer that can do anything which makes your conjecture totally worthless.
You have no criteria beyond your emotional desire for it to be true.

Ok, by your logic one can´t know if something was design or not, then this conversation is useless.

Besides, your comment is sooooo full of nonsense that it is hard to determine where to start.

 

[leroy]

I would think about it when I see it, till then why would anyone waste their time on conjectures like this?

Ohh it was a trap…….. but you evade it……… that was a good move, any direct answer (yes or no) would have resulted in me winning,

1 if you would have said NO, then I would simply note the fact that no evidence will ever convince, which would mean that you are an atheist in a dogmatic way

2 if you would have answered YES then you would then have to admit that all your previous objections to the FT argument are nonsense,

But you made a good move, it is always important to avoid direct yes or no answers, because other people will eventually find flaws in your dogma…………it is always better to evade these questions with ether vague answers or excuses for not answering.

 

[Pogo]

Ok, by your logic one can´t know if something was design or not, then this conversation is useless.

Besides, your comment is sooooo full of nonsense that it is hard to determine where to start.

Hey, congratulations, the conversation is useless because we have no way of determining if it is design or not.

3000 posts to get back to where we were 25 years ago when a new crop of kids and a rich old lawyer dragged out a moldy oldy reformulation of the argument for Zeus because lightning happens.

MOST OF THE WORLD HAS MOVED ON SINCE THEN.

 

[Pogo]

Ohh it was a trap…….. but you evade it……… that was a good move, any direct answer (yes or no) would have resulted in me winning,

1 if you would have said NO, then I would simply note the fact that no evidence will ever convince, which would mean that you are an atheist in a dogmatic way

2 if you would have answered YES then you would then have to admit that all your previous objections to the FT argument are nonsense,

But you made a good move, it is always important to avoid direct yes or no answers, because other people will eventually find flaws in your dogma…………it is always better to evade these questions with ether vague answers or excuses for not answering.

In other words, I'm smarter than you, I have learned from how ever many thousands of years of accumulated humans knowledge.

 

[leroy]

It would probably not be evidence for a God. Part of the problem is that you have not considered all of the possible alternatives. Did you see the movie "A Beautiful Mind"? It was about John Nash, a mathematician that suffered from mental illness. In the movie he got into the habit of asking others if what he saw was real at times. I do not know if this was accurate, he had his won way with dealing with hearing voices. Movies do take liberties. But what you are describing is so irrational that the odds are that the most likely explanation would be that it was a delusion. I am not saying that all people that have "seen God" are mentally ill, but that could be the case.

John Forbes Nash Jr. - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is a good example of the problem with not being able to form a rational argument. That also affects your ability to come up with even possible evidence for your argument.

what about the second part of the question? (in red)
If the stars suddenly rearrange to spell the words “I exists” sincerely the God of the bible………….would you accept that as evidence for God,? would you at least accept that as evidence for design? Yes no why?

But what you are describing is so irrational that the odds are that the most likely explanation would be that it was a delusion.

I don’ts why is it irrational,………… but let’s say that multiple different astronomers from different telescopes, saw, took photos, and reported the same thing “the stars in some place of the observable universe are organized such that the spell “I exist, sincerely the God of the bible”

So likely this was not a delusion,

woudl that be evidence for God, or alteast for some type of inteligent design?

 

[leroy]

In other words, I'm smarter than you, I have learned from how ever many thousands of years of accumulated humans knowledge.

Smarter? Well in my opinion the smartest move would have been to change your dogma for a reasonable world view, that way you would be afraid of answering questions directly

 

[leroy]

Hey, congratulations, the conversation is useless because we have no way of determining if it is design or not.

Well the issue is that it seems to me that you did determined that it wasn’t designed. (that is why you are an atheist)

It seems to me that you are saying

1 I can´t determine if it was designed or not

2 therefore I conclude no design

(see the contradiction)



Of course, the truth is that your whole premise is wrong, of course we can know if things are design, archeologists, forensic scientists, fire experts, and you in your daily life make design inferences all the time, and nobody makes non sense claims such as “You don't without knowing what the designer can do”

 

[Subduction Zone]

what about the second part of the question? (in red)
If the stars suddenly rearrange to spell the words “I exists” sincerely the God of the bible………….would you accept that as evidence for God,? would you at least accept that as evidence for design? Yes no why?

I explained why not in that post. Seriously, how could you have missed that? Irrational "what ifs" are not the basis of a sound argumetnt.

I don’ts why is it irrational,………… but let’s say that multiple different astronomers from different telescopes, saw, took photos, and reported the same thing “the stars in some place of the observable universe are organized such that the spell “I exist, sincerely the God of the bible”

So likely this was not a delusion,

woudl that be evidence for God, or alteast for some type of inteligent design?

Once again, irrational "what ifs" are not the basis of a sound argument. If you want to make an argument for design the burden of proof is upon you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In other words, I'm smarter than you, I have learned from how ever many thousands of years of accumulated humans knowledge.

But what if God came down from heaven, shook your hands, and kissed your backside? Would that be good evidence for an Intelligent Designer?

Oops . . . I have been talking to much to leroy.

 

[leroy]

I explained why not in that post. Seriously, how could you have missed that? Irrational "what ifs" are not the basis of a sound argumetnt.

You said that it probably would not be evidence for God, but you said nothing about a designer………that is why I asked. (but íll take that your answer is no for both God and a designer)

So you simply have ridiculously high standards…………the evidence for God or design is not week it is just that you have very high and irrational standards, …

My next question would be, why is it that you only have high standards with “god” and then lower the standards when it comes to things that are consistent with your world view?......... (this last question is is not a real question, I already know the answer)

Once again, irrational "what ifs" are not the basis of a sound argument. If you want to make an argument for design the burden of proof is upon you.

Science works largely due to “what ifs”(WI)……. WI are the basis for making predictions and testable models.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well that is analogous to the FT argument.

1 There are many possible ways in which stars can exist, but only one or few combinations would look like a meaningful text.

Analogous to

2 There are many possible values in the constants and initial conditions of the universe, but only one or few combinations would produce a life permitting universe.

So if you accept the first argument as evidence, you should also accept the second argument

However, if an infinite number of universes come into existence in the multiverse, then the likelihood of at least one of them having that characteristic seems to be pretty much 100%! Now all you have to do is consider that the only reason you can even ask these questions is that you happen to exist in that one.

 

[leroy]

However, if an infinite number of universes come into existence in the multiverse, then the likelihood of at least one of them having that characteristic seems to be pretty much 100%!

The same would be true with universes that have stars organized such that they look like meaningful words and sentences in English

If there are infinite number of universes, some would have stars that spell the sentence “I exist, sincerely the god of the bible ……….. but yet you still consider that pattern of stars evidence for God

Now all you have to do is consider that the only reason you can even ask these questions is that you happen to exist in that one.

the same applies to “I exist, sincerely the god of the bible"



so the FT is still analogous to the argument that you said that would be evidence for God

 

[Pogo]

Well the issue is that it seems to me that you did determined that it wasn’t designed. (that is why you are an atheist)

It seems to me that you are saying

1 I can´t determine if it was designed or not

2 therefore I conclude no design

(see the contradiction)



Of course, the truth is that your whole premise is wrong, of course we can know if things are design, archeologists, forensic scientists, fire experts, and you in your daily life make design inferences all the time, and nobody makes non sense claims such as “You don't without knowing what the designer can do”

P1 If A then B
P2 not A
C B is Unknown

Learn some logic and reading comprehension.
Unknown means it is not Known
Atheists do not believe in gods, this says nothing about existence only belief.
Note, there are gods we know do not exist because they are logical impossibilities, but that is not a belief.

 

[leroy]

P1 If A then B
P2 not A
C Unknown

Learn some logic and reading comprehension.
Unknown means it is not Known
Atheists do not believe in gods, this says nothing about existence only belief.
Note, there are gods we know do not exist because they are logical impossibilities, but that is not a belief.

Again, my impression is that you are acting as if you do know that likely there is not a god nor a designer of the universe.



BTW you still have to prove your nonsense premise of “we can’t know if the universe was design or not”

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

so the FT is still analogous to the argument that you said that would be evidence for God

No it does not, because the situation you describe does not exist. This is a universe that supports life. This is not a universe with stars aligned to say: "I exist, sincerely the God of the Bible." Nor do you have an example of a universe that has that characteristic.