Lack of belief in gods.

[Thief]

"you have not rebutted any of my beliefs...."

That is the part you just cannot grasp. It was never my aim to rebuke your beliefs. I mean, why on Earth would I care what you believe?

I am not asking for your caring.....

choose.....
Spirit before substance?
or substance before Spirit?

consequence pending

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I am not asking for your caring.....

choose.....
Spirit before substance?
or substance before Spirit?

consequence pending

Why on Earth would I care about your "consequence"? You sure do assume a lot of yourself. I don't value your insight, I don't value your opinion, and I don't care about your "consequences".

 

[Thief]

Why on Earth would I care about your "consequence"? You sure do assume a lot of yourself. I don't value your insight, I don't value your opinion, and I don't care about your "consequences".

yeah yeah.....you said you didn't care.....
I understand apathy

the argumentative consequence awaits you choice

Spirit first?
or substance?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

yeah yeah.....you said you didn't care.....
I understand apathy

the argumentative consequence awaits you choice

Spirit first?
or substance?

"understand apathy"

Let me be clear about this, it is not apathy in your case, it is a lack of respect.

 

[Thief]

"understand apathy"

Let me be clear about this, it is not apathy in your case, it is a lack of respect.

we are discussing your lack of belief

are you now prepared to continue?

that choice is still waiting

 

[Thumper]

...
Spirit first?
or substance?

Define your terms.

 

[Thief]

Define your terms.

really?
are you sure you have what is takes to be here?

just guess....

 

[leibowde84]

So you deduce intelligent design even when the only direct evidence is for a natural cause.- which we don't even have for the universe.

Nope. In your analogy, there is a word spelled out, so there is evidence for intelligence design. With the universe, there is no evidence of intelligent design. There is merely an assumption being made ... namely, that the universe is too complex, beautiful, etc. to have come about naturally.

It's not impossible that the waves could spell help, it's just that there is a better explanation if we allow even the merest possibility of ID being involved, it easily becomes the better explanation.

If there was no direct evidence of humans existing and creating words (as with the universe), then you would have a point. But, there are plenty of people in the world that could have spelled the word with rocks. God, otoh, could very well be a man-made invention.

All you need is a potential motive + the possibility of ID V the very long odds of the natural mechanism achieving the same result.

The odds are not that long when there are 14 billion years to work with. And, the mere fact that we have not yet proved a natural cause doesn't mean that one doesn't exist that we merely do not yet know about.

 

[Falvlun]

yeah....I tend to be redundant
in the face of denial

so.....have you made the choice?
Spirit first?....or substance?

consequence pending

note previous post.....

make a choice

Well, you clearly just answered my question.

If I may butt in, it seems to me that Thief is saying that the evidence doesn't particularly matter since there is none (that we can access). Without any evidence, all that's left is choice. Which one do you prefer? Preference, rather than evidence, is the criteria.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nope. In your analogy, there is a word spelled out, so there is evidence for intelligence design. With the universe, there is no evidence of intelligent design. There is merely an assumption being made ... namely, that the universe is too complex, beautiful, etc. to have come about naturally.
If there was no direct evidence of humans existing and creating words (as with the universe), then you would have a point. But, there are plenty of people in the world that could have spelled the word with rocks. God, otoh, could very well be a man-made invention.

The odds are not that long when there are 14 billion years to work with. And, the mere fact that we have not yet proved a natural cause doesn't mean that one doesn't exist that we merely do not yet know about.

The analogy concedes NO direct evidence of any intelligent agent ever being there, this is unfair for God? we have to rule him out entirely to make a fair analogy?!

It also grants you a fully functional natural mechanism which can absolutely produce the result- something we have no evidence of for the universe as you concede, but you did not complain of this inaccuracy!

So the analogy is actually heavily biased towards a naturalistic explanation compared with the universe as we understand it

What if the word appeared to say'word' .instead of 'help' That would be curious, but we would be slightly less convinced of intelligent agency.

i.e. at it's root, it's not the fact that it is an english word that lets us deduce ID, but that there is a potential motive for the pattern, same with the gambler playing 5 royal flushes in a row, it's no less probable than any sequence of 25 cards, but the motive provides a superior explanation

 

[leibowde84]

The analogy concedes NO direct evidence of any intelligent agent ever being there, this is unfair for God? we have to rule him out entirely to make a fair analogy?!

There is direct (demonstrative, verifiable) evidence for human beings existing in the world. There is no evidence of this kind for the existence of God. In other words, we know humans exist and have created the word "help". We don't know that God exists and created anything.

It also grants you a fully functional natural mechanism which can absolutely produce the result- something we have no evidence of for the universe as you concede, but you did not complain of this inaccuracy!

No, it only grants the possibility that there is a natural mechanism that could explain the result. We merely haven't discovered it yet. But, we do know that a multitude of questions have been answered scientifically throughout history that, at one time or another, were attributed to God. So, the assumption is merely that maybe this is just another one of those instances.

What if the word appeared to say'word' .instead of 'help' That would be curious, but we would be slightly less convinced of intelligent agency.

No, I think there would be the same likelihood of intelligent design. They are both four letter words. So, it would be just as likely for the rocks to appear that way naturally. Motive has no impact on the likelihood of the word occurring naturally. The motive would only impact the likelihood of why the word was spelled out, if it was in fact spelled out by a human.

i.e. at it's root, it's not the fact that it is an english word that lets us deduce ID, but that there is a potential motive for the pattern, same with the gambler playing 5 royal flushes in a row, it's no less probable than any sequence of 25 cards, but the motive provides a superior explanation

The idea of a motive behind the universe only exists if God is assumed to exist. I think that God must be shown to exist before motive can play a part in likelihood.

 

[Cephus]

If I may butt in, it seems to me that Thief is saying that the evidence doesn't particularly matter since there is none (that we can access). Without any evidence, all that's left is choice. Which one do you prefer? Preference, rather than evidence, is the criteria.

You cannot choose reality. Reality exists regardless of your choices. All you can do is acknowledge reality as it is. You don't get to decide what you want reality to be. Only crazy people think that's possible. And in the absence of evidence that gods actually exist, the only rational thing to do is reject such claims, at least provisionally, until actual, objective, demonstrable evidence comes to pass.

You cannot "prefer" unicorns into existence. They either exist or they do not. Your preferences have zero bearing on whether they are real or not. Gods are no different.

 

[leibowde84]

If I may butt in, it seems to me that Thief is saying that the evidence doesn't particularly matter since there is none (that we can access). Without any evidence, all that's left is choice. Which one do you prefer? Preference, rather than evidence, is the criteria.

That's kind of a crazy way of interpreting reality. Just believe whatever makes you feel better?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is direct (demonstrative, verifiable) evidence for human beings existing in the world. There is no evidence of this kind for the existence of God. In other words, we know humans exist and have created the word "help". We don't know that God exists and created anything.

we know that creative intelligence and natural phenomena both exist in this world

There is no direct evidence of either existing beyond it, but we have no basis to rule either out. Allowing the merest possibility of either existing, we know which has the greater creative power

No, I think there would be the same likelihood of intelligent design. They are both four letter words. So, it would be just as likely for the rocks to appear that way naturally. Motive has no impact on the likelihood of the word occurring naturally. The motive would only impact the likelihood of why the word was spelled out, if it was in fact spelled out by a human.

The idea of a motive behind the universe only exists if God is assumed to exist. I think that God must be shown to exist before motive can play a part in likelihood.

exactly, it's not the odds of chance making the word HELP or WORD, arguably that is the same for each word as you say, or any random pattern using the same number of rocks.

Just as any sequence of 25 cards is no less improbable than 5 royal flushes in a row

The deduction of ID does not come from a difference in the odds of chance creating the result in question, it comes from the greater probability of ID doing it

 

[Thumper]

we know that creative intelligence and natural phenomena both exist in this world

There is no direct evidence of either existing beyond it, but we have no basis to rule either out. Allowing the merest possibility of either existing, we know which has the greater creative power



exactly, it's not the odds of chance making the word HELP or WORD, arguably that is the same for each word as you say, or any random pattern using the same number of rocks.

Just as any sequence of 25 cards is no less improbable than 5 royal flushes in a row

The deduction of ID does not come from a difference in the odds of chance creating the result in question, it comes from the greater probability of ID doing it

Then you don't understand probability theory. You have no basis for assigning probability.

 

[leibowde84]

we know that creative intelligence and natural phenomena both exist in this world

There is no direct evidence of either existing beyond it, but we have no basis to rule either out. Allowing the merest possibility of either existing, we know which has the greater creative power



exactly, it's not the odds of chance making the word HELP or WORD, arguably that is the same for each word as you say, or any random pattern using the same number of rocks.

Just as any sequence of 25 cards is no less improbable than 5 royal flushes in a row

The deduction of ID does not come from a difference in the odds of chance creating the result in question, it comes from the greater probability of ID doing it

When it comes to man created words, there is a greater chance of words appearing at the hand of man. With the universe, you can't get to the same position unless you assume that an intelligence capable of creating the universe exists. If you do that, you are guilty of circular reasoning.

Just to be clear, my argument is that your analogy is flawed, not that God is an impossibility. Before you can use the analogy, you must first show that God exists, God is able to create the universe, and God has the ability to be the cause without being created by something else. You can claim that, by definition, God is the "uncaused cause", but that would, again, be circular reasoning.

With a word we know that man exists, that man created language, and that man has the capacity to create words. With the universe, you have not done any of this.

 

[leibowde84]

we know that creative intelligence and natural phenomena both exist in this world

There is no direct evidence of either existing beyond it, but we have no basis to rule either out. Allowing the merest possibility of either existing, we know which has the greater creative power



exactly, it's not the odds of chance making the word HELP or WORD, arguably that is the same for each word as you say, or any random pattern using the same number of rocks.

Just as any sequence of 25 cards is no less improbable than 5 royal flushes in a row

The deduction of ID does not come from a difference in the odds of chance creating the result in question, it comes from the greater probability of ID doing it

In other words, you can't assign probability to an intelligence having created something before proving that the intelligence exists in the first place.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Preference, rather than evidence, is the criteria.

A concise summation. If only all religious/magical-minded people could be as aware of and honest about their motivations.

 

[Willamena]

I am not asking for your caring.....

choose.....
Spirit before substance?
or substance before Spirit?

consequence pending

I choose logic.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Then you don't understand probability theory. You have no basis for assigning probability.

If a gambler plays 5 royal flushes in a row, you put it down to luck?