There does NOT have to be God or Intent of Creation

[Galactic Spin]

See post #271.
Plus you are in way over your head that time.

He is. Kind of makes you appreciate @DrewPaul 's efforts, doesn't it? At least he doesn't degenerate into a squealing toddler the moment he stumbles.

 

[Jacksprat]

The entire concept of God exists outside of the natural world, and therefore does not have to follow those rules.

Then anything can be asserted about the world and need not have any logical basis.

 

[Fishking]

Yes, sorry. You didn't even know what fallacy you were wielding, so don't pretend you know anything about its debunk. It won't work for you.

OK...go ahead and show me where the universe shat out even a basic engine. I'll wait.

 

[watsup]

There are people who wrongly think that a universe can create anything given enough time

This is a strawman lie. Nobody here has said anything remotely close to this. Is this really the “best” that you can do?

 

[Fishking]

See post #271.
Plus you are in way over your head that time.

Again you demonstrate the depth of a kiddie pool by being stuck on repeat with even the most basic of questioning. You cannot go further, you've run your course, you're done.

 

[Fishking]

Then anything can be asserted about the world and need not have any logical basis.

Not if you're a secularist.

 

[Fishking]

This is a strawman lie. Nobody here has said anything remotely close to this. Is this really the “best” that you can do?

[] Click this box to prove you're not a robot.

 

[watsup]

the magic card that doesn't violate it's own reasoning and premises

Yes, that is true. It must rely on IT’S OWN “reasoning and premises” because as soon as it steps out of those parameters and into ACTUAL logic and reason, it falls flat on its face. That’s why you refuse to discuss it using THOSE parameters, not your made-up ones.

 

[Galactic Spin]

People who wield the 747 fallacy to argue against evolution simply lack fundamental understanding of how evolution works and of the time scales involved.

Evolution has produced structures by small, incremental changes over millions of generations. If we were to design an eyeball, it would be more efficient and more capable than the eyeballs we possess.

Nature has simply produced a functional organ that is "good enough", via tiny changes, over a vast amount of time. The eyeball did not just appear one day.

Here is a great, educational video on the evolution of the eyeball. Though it is a lecture meant for children, it should also be very educational for adults who know nothing about how evolution works. @Fishking : I suggest you watch it.

 

[watsup]

OK...go ahead and show me where the universe shat out even a basic engine. I'll wait.

What a totally ridiculous example. Is that really the “best” that you can do. You are totally relying on your foundational strawman.

 

[Jacksprat]

We are asked to believe that non-life created life without any evidence or even a mechanism for it to do so.

This is the wrong way to think about life. The evolution of the universe is ongoing. Life is just one stage in its evolution.

 

[watsup]

Nothing you've written is appropriate in this thread, yet you deign to cast aspersions. You do not have the standing.

Still can actually directly address anything, and now you're running even further away.

Again you demonstrate the depth of a kiddie pool by being stuck on repeat with even the most basic of questioning. You cannot go further, you've run your course, you're done.

See post #271. And try to get directly back on topic.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Then anything can be asserted about the world and need not have any logical basis.

Exactly. That's the magic card. There can be no argument or evidence for or against magic, inherently.

 

[Jacksprat]

Not if you're a secularist.

Yes, a "secularist" obeys rules of logic. Saying God is outside logic means anything can be stated without proof.

 

[Galactic Spin]

We are asked to believe that non-life created life without any evidence or even a mechanism for it to do so.

And another stumble already. That's 3 right out of the gate.

If one would claim God "obviously" created life due to apparent design, then that one merely claims God created "the first life". I.E., single celled prokaryotes.

But oops! That one has just admitted that natural evolution can indeed produce complex structures. Prokaryotes did not have eyeballs, or lungs.

So that one has already admitted nature can produce these things. So they just kneecapped their own authoritative assertion that nature could not have produced the much simpler, single celled prokaryotes, based on those prokaryotes being "too complicated"

It's easy tell when we are dealing with neonates, in these discussions. They make the same mistakes children make, when first learning of and discussing these topics.

 

[Slavister]

*sigh*

This entire string of questions was unneeded and irrelevant, as demonstrated by your following statement.

Yes, you can say the same thing about the Universe, meaning there is no valid criticism in your previous line of questions. No matter what way you look at it, you're going to be starting with the presumption of some kind of energy having always existed.

Yes and that energy can be Universe (or Multiverse). NOT God with any kind of INTENT. So there is no invalidation of any kind here.

No, your statement of a reversal of logic. Life, even basic life, is more complex than an engine. We are asked to believe that non-life created life without any evidence or even a mechanism for it to do so. However, even a more simple thing, like an engine, could never put itself together even if it tumbled for eternity with all the parts premade an indestructable. It would take something with intent to put it together, even though it's a more simple creation.

You are ASSUMING that if intent is required for a "simple" thing then it's required for a more "complex" thing. From perspective of a Universe, "life" might very well be the simpler thing to put together than an engine however. Engine is just some made up human thing. Life however is result of billions of years of natural evolution.

 

[Galactic Spin]

OK...go ahead and show me where the universe shat out even a basic engine. I'll wait.

Nobody has to do that. Not ever. Your fallacy is yours to embarrass yourself with. Nobody has to pay it any mind.

 

[Fishking]

Yes, that is true. It must rely on IT’S OWN “reasoning and premises” because as soon as it steps out of those parameters and into ACTUAL logic and reason, it falls flat on its face.

Yes, if you stupidly contradict the premise itself it will fall flat on it's face. How very astute of you. However, the secularists fall flat on their face within their own premises.

 

[Fishking]

People who wield the 747 fallacy to argue against evolution simply lack fundamental understanding of how evolution works and of the time scales involved.

I didn't say anything about evolution. Care to try again?

 

[Galactic Spin]

Yes, if you stupidly contradict the premise itself it will fall flat on it's face.

Which is why you choose dubious, magical premises for which there can never be evidence for or against. You simply have to realize that we are all ten steps ahead of you.

 

[DrewPaul]

It does not defy it. I never said it's impossible for us to have a Creator. It's quite possible we are in a matrix too. However, it's also quite possible we are not since whatever Creator might have created us would have the same origin questions as us.

So what if it has the same origin questions. I'm not attempting to explain the origin of the Creator. Are you offering a solution that solves the problem? We owe our existence to mindless natural causes or a Creator...which do believe is true? Just your opinion.

Actually, intent of all scientific theories.....without a need for a God.

Yes those people were theists such as Isaac Newton and the other founding fathers of science. They believed the universe was knowable, mathematically explicable, uniform, predictable and amenable to scientific research specifically because they were 'reverse' engineering the universe. They acted on the premise the universe was created intelligently so it wasn't a shock to them that they could extract formulas and equations that describe the universe. It wasn't a shock to Newton that he could mathematically calculate the orbits of planets. He assumed it would be. They also weren't shocked to discover its not necessary for the Creator to actively cause everything that's observed such as rain, fire or earthquakes. An intelligent creator would cause a universe that doesn't require the creator to be constantly minding the store. We design things the same way. The designers of automobiles aren't inside the car making it go.

ended up discovering scientific theories and findings that simply furthered our understanding of the Universe... without a need for a God.

You know that's classic circular reasoning. If God or a Scientist did in fact cause the universe to exist then it would turn out everything did in fact need a Creator. Your evidence is only valid if your conclusion is valid and its natural forces all the way down.

What you are effectively saying is that "something" (i.e. life on Earth and human life on Earth) seems so unique that it must have been created with intent. This uniqueness or "rarity" property of our life appears to drive your conviction that there must have been INTENT from some entity.

Much more than that. By a careful comparison between the two most likely possibilities; The universe (somehow) was intentionally caused or the universe (somehow) came about unintentionally. Its a reasonable assumption that the event, the universe had a cause. Events have always led to causes no reason to special plead in this case. All we have to go on to determine which possibility is more likely is the universe itself. Its the only clues available. Anything else is either God or Nature in the gaps arguments.

Of course the existence of intelligent life and the conditions necessary to cause it and sustain it raises a huge red flag. If we could observe a chaotic, lifeless universe no one would claim it was intentionally caused. Everyone would agree mindless natural forces were perfectly capable of causing such a universe. In fact its what we'd expect natural forces that don't give a hoot if life exists to cause. The proof life wasn't intended to exist would be the non-existence of life. You realize one of the reasons of multiverse theory, is to account for how natural forces could unintentionally cause the conditions for our existence. Scientists acknowledge the fine tuning of the universe for life. They have a virtual universe they know what happens when they tweak certain constants the most minuscule amount up or down. You get thinly spaced out matter or huge black holes. That's part of the theory that there are an infinitude of lifeless galaxies. Naturally we find ourselves in the universe with the right conditions. I would say that if the universe wasn't rigged it must be a multiverse.

 

[Fishking]

See post #271. And try to get directly back on topic.

Your post #271 was ****ing stupid, yet you're so proud of it. It's like a toddler smearing their own shit on the wall and pretending they made art.

 

[watsup]

the secularists fall flat on their face within their own premises.

Not really. It is only the supposed secularists in your constant STRAWMEN that “fall flat”. When secularists actually speak for themselves, as opposed to you trying to speak for them, it’s all quite thoughtful and logical.

 

[Galactic Spin]

I didn't say anything about evolution.

You didn't have to do so. Intelligent people can deduce things from your statements that must the also be true, if your original assertion is true. This deductive reasoning is one of the special things humans can do. Some are good at it, and some aren't. As we are seeing right now in your little display.

 

[DrewPaul]

Response con't . I type too much.

Of course the existence of intelligent life and the conditions necessary to cause it and sustain it raises a huge red flag. If we could observe a chaotic, lifeless universe no one would claim it was intentionally caused. Everyone would agree mindless natural forces were perfectly capable of causing such a universe. In fact its what we'd expect natural forces that don't give a hoot if life exists to cause. The proof life wasn't intended to exist would be the non-existence of life. You realize one of the reasons of multiverse theory, is to account for how natural forces could unintentionally cause the conditions for our existence. Scientists acknowledge the fine tuning of the universe for life. They have a virtual universe they know what happens when they tweak certain constants the most minuscule amount up or down. You get thinly spaced out matter or huge black holes. That's part of the theory that there are an infinitude of lifeless galaxies. Naturally we find ourselves in the universe with the right conditions. I would say that if the universe wasn't rigged it must be a multiverse.

Its biggest draw back is that it's a time and chance naturalism in the gaps hypothesis. The driving force behind our universe and others is cosmic inflation. Another in the gaps naturalistic explanation. All hinging on the idea that given enough time and chance the improbable become inevitable. Infinity gives us an indefinite number of chances. We can use that reasoning against anything known to be intentionally created. Given enough time and chance nuclear power plants will come to exist unintentionally. If the existence of God is improbable given enough time and chance God will inevitably exist and cause a universe that we live in to exist.

I'm skeptical of the claim that anything can happen given enough chances to happen. For instance I don't believe its possible to flip a legitimate coin a thousand times heads no matter if there is an infinitude of coins being flipped. Because the other coins have no bearing on the odds of a coin that magically flips a thousand times heads. The explanation that avoids multiplying entities to infinity if the idea the coin is rigged. Now it doesn't have to be magic.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

Given enough time and chances I can have it both ways.