Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116,971,997]

[blarg]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Tell it to the Marines, blarg.

what did they fail to understand what the fallacy fallacy is and call on it to dismiss criticism for using fallacies to?

 

[blarg]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Mathematicians determined that.

how so?

 

[blarg]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Dawkins himself agrees that the universe is fine tuned. If you move any of the fundamental constants (such as gravity) even a fraction of a fraction, there would be no life on Earth. That's pretty fine tuned if you ask me...

As to Premiss 2, if you told me that Physical Necessity has a [not actual numbers, just estimating to make my point] 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of being correct, that Chance has a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of being correct, and Design has a 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance of being correct, I would say that Design is an extremely safe bet... And, if faced with these odds in any other aspect of one's life, such as "a car appearing in their driveway", one would find those odds to be insurmountable and would believe that it was put there by design.

thats not evidence that someone fine tuned anything anymore then its evidence of a multiverse

 

[blarg]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

I quit listening to lies a long time when I left the church I belonged to...

you quit lisitngin to what you believe are lies not necessarily the same thing

 

[stevecanuck]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Well, there ya go...thanks for stating the obvious truth to the atheists who don't get it...the same can be said for believers...we reject the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God...now it's settled...:applaud...

Happy to be of service.

 

[blarg]

So, if a car appeared in your driveway that wasn't there a moment ago, how would you explain it's existence... Is the car there by physical necessity, chance, or design?

using an object that's known to be man made a stand in for the universe

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_analogy

yet the god can just exist because and nothing else can violate the rules you set for everything else just because

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/163/Special-Pleading

your arguments for god are just your preferred placeholder

 

[blarg]

It's not a diversion, or a weak analogy, and PROVE that the universe has always existed... that's just your belief... And if you truly believe that, answer this...

If past time was actually infinite, then how did we arrive at this precise moment right now?

if god always existed how did we get to now? maybe its outside of time? but if that's the case then all times always existed exist and will always exist from its perspective and time as we know it is just are flawed perception of a static object

but if time is static the it can always exist without being infinitely long and we can give it the god trilt of always just being because we need it to

 

[blarg]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Because any little adjustment of any fundamental force (such as gravity) would make Earth life-prohibiting.

ok that shows conditions have to be very specific for life now how do you propose to show someone set those conditions?

 

[blarg]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Mathematical Basis for Probability Calculations Used in (the film) Origin
Excerpt: Putting the probabilities together means adding the exponents. The probability of getting a properly folded chain of one-handed amino acids, joined by peptide bonds, is one chance in 10^74+45+45, or one in 10^164 (Meyer, p. 212). This means that, on average, you would need to construct 10^164 chains of amino acids 150 units long to expect to find one that is useful.
Illustra Media - Origin - The Mathematics of Origin

 

[Angel]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

4:13 Zzzzzz...

 

[Daisy]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

you quit lisitngin to what you believe are lies not necessarily the same thing

So you disagree then that the church I attended taught lies...ok, good to know...

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

So you disagree then that the church I attended taught lies...ok, good to know...

Do you always misrepresent what is said? Is that a habit with you?

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

ok that shows conditions have to be very specific for life now how do you propose to show someone set those conditions?

Because those conditions aren't physically necessary, and there is an unimaginably small chance that those very specific conditions could have all simultaneously happened by chance, which leads to the most logical conclusion, that it all happened by design, which requires a designer, which requires a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, intelligent, personal, etc. etc agent, otherwise known and described as God.

 

[devildavid]

you quit lisitngin to what you believe are lies not necessarily the same thing

People never see the lies they believe.

 

[devildavid]

Because those conditions aren't physically necessary, and there is an unimaginably small chance that those very specific conditions could have all simultaneously happened by chance, which leads to the most logical conclusion, that it all happened by design, which requires a designer, which requires a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, intelligent, personal, etc. etc agent, otherwise known and described as God.

If the entire universe is designed, why did a large part of the design fail to create human life?

 

[gfm7175]

If the entire universe is designed, why did a large part of the design fail to create human life?

Maybe the whole universe wasn't designed for the purpose of physical human habitation? Maybe only Earth was designed for that purpose?

 

[Daisy]

Maybe the whole universe wasn't designed for the purpose of physical human habitation? Maybe only Earth was designed for that purpose?

Exactly...Isaiah said Jehovah created the earth to be inhabited...Isa. 45:18

As for the rest of the universe, who knows...perhaps in time, He will let us know if there is life elsewhere...

 

[devildavid]

Maybe the whole universe wasn't designed for the purpose of physical human habitation? Maybe only Earth was designed for that purpose?

Why would there be a design behind failure? The claim that our existence points to design is based on the low probability of it happening. Why would a designer bother with designing things that don't result in human life? Does the high probability of failure point to design? Or is it actually that probabilities have nothing to do with perceived design?

 

[gfm7175]

Why would there be a design behind failure? The claim that our existence points to design is based on the low probability of it happening. Why would a designer bother with designing things that don't result in human life? Does the high probability of failure point to design? Or is it actually that probabilities have nothing to do with perceived design?

Why would design be considered "failure" if it didn't produce human life? Maybe the rest of the design has purposes other than human habitation? Maybe the rest of that design supports human habitation on Earth?

Maybe other entities exist in those areas? (but that's pure speculation)

 

[Daisy]

Why would there be a design behind failure? The claim that our existence points to design is based on the low probability of it happening. Why would a designer bother with designing things that don't result in human life? Does the high probability of failure point to design? Or is it actually that probabilities have nothing to do with perceived design?

How arrogant of you to think that human life on this little planet is the be all and end all...the earth is a mere speck of dust in the grand scheme of things, as are we humans...

"When I see your heavens, the works of your fingers,
The moon and the stars that you have prepared,
What is mortal man that you keep him in mind,
And a son of man that you take care of him?" Psalm 8:3

 

[Pedestrian]

I am a theist and in regard to religion I call myself a diy Christian.

I have been talking with atheists for years now, and I have come to the certainty that atheists are essentially into evasions in their arguments against the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

For example, the ways they describe themselves is already into evasion, avoiding seeing themselves in their true attitude, like they describe themselves as just not believing in any God, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc., whereas the way I see them they are simply motivated by any other reasons, than that they simply just do not believe in any God, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc.

These observations set upon you a belief what you choose to or you...want to believe. Belief is a strange thing.

One can...believe just about anything, about any god and anybody you talk with. However, atheists need evade nothing.

 

[devildavid]

Why would design be considered "failure" if it didn't produce human life? Maybe the rest of the design has purposes other than human habitation? Maybe the rest of that design supports human habitation on Earth?

Maybe other entities exist in those areas? (but that's pure speculation)

So you are just subjectively interpreting things to fit your beliefs. You see a design because you want to see it. It can just as easily be seen as the result of random chance within a constrained physical framework.

 

[gfm7175]

So you are just subjectively interpreting things to fit your beliefs.

No? I was just saying that non-life permitting creation doesn't mean that the creation was a "failure".

You see a design because you want to see it.

I see a design because, from an atheistic viewpoint, there is a 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance that the universe was designed and a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that the universe appeared the exact way that it did due to dumb luck.

It can just as easily be seen as the result of random chance within a constrained physical framework.

I'd have to see some probability numbers on that...

 

[devildavid]

No? I was just saying that non-life permitting creation doesn't mean that the creation was a "failure".


I see a design because, from an atheistic viewpoint, there is a 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance that the universe was designed and a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that the universe appeared the exact way that it did due to dumb luck.


I'd have to see some probability numbers on that...

Your numbers are a complete fabrication.

If the long odds of creating life are a sign of design then all of creation lacking such life is a failure to design life. Why would a designer purposely fail if it could create life everywhere just as easily as not? Is this designer subject to forces that limit its design abilities?

 

[gfm7175]

Your numbers are a complete fabrication.

If the long odds of creating life are a sign of design then all of creation lacking such life is a failure to design life. Why would a designer purposely fail if it could create life everywhere just as easily as not? Is this designer subject to forces that limit its design abilities?

I think you're asking questions that don't matter in the slightest... why is life existing everywhere so important to you?

On a different topic, I wonder if you would say that we are making decent moral progress in this country or if we still have a long way to go yet.