Trying to round up an Atheist for Formal Debate on I.D.

[Elioenai26]

It is not necessarily true that because an object exceeds some undescribed level of complexity, it was therefore the product of some, also completely undescribed, designer.

You're exactly right. I agree and everyone else also should agree with your statement as well. Just because humans are observed to be unimaginably complex that does not necessarily mean they are designed. Nor have I ever argued that. What I am arguing is this: even though it is logically possible that life as we know it could come about by an unguided, blind, purposeless process of evolution by "natural selection", is it rational to think this actually happened given the evidence we have? Utilizing IBE or inference to the best explanation, as objectively and as unbiased as we can possibly be, we must examine the evidence we have at our disposal and draw conclusions from it. You don't start out by saying: "I.D. theory is true....or Theism is true...or creationism is true....or Christianity is true....or Neo-Darwinism is true....or evolution by natural selection is true....or metgodilogical naturalism is true....

No no no....you don't START YOUR SEARCH FOR truth by saying or believing any of those things...

You start by simply saying: "Anything logically possible is possible."

Any explanation is a possible explanation so long as it is logically possible I.e. not self contradicting. And the best explanation will be the one that does not multiply probabilities beyond what is necessary to explain the subject in question, it will have the best explanatory power as well as scope.

But biologists like Richard Dawkins don't do this. They start by saying: "Any explanation for our discoveries MUST BE PURELY NATURALISTIC/MATERIALISTIC IN NATURE."

But this is so obviously begging the question. Starting out with this erroneous view is going to give you erroneous conclusions. Its like playing craps with loaded dice...or poker with a stacked deck. Its unfair and dishonest. People like Dawkins are always gonna find what they want to find because they are interpreting the evidence one way. That is simply not objective and anyone who behaves this way does not deserve the title of "scientist".

 

[quatona]

Would someone following this thread be so kind to notify me in case the promised evidence for ID is finally presented? Thank you.

 

[KCfromNC]

What I am arguing is this: even though it is logically possible that life as we know it could come about by an unguided, blind, purposeless process of evolution by "natural selection", is it rational to think this actually happened given the evidence we have?

Sure. The evidence for evolution as the cause of diversity of life on this planet is pretty overwhelming. Strange you ask what the evidence indicates and then fail to discuss any of the reams of evidence in the rest of your post. Almost as if you're trying to pretend to care about the evidence but then change the subject to something else entirely.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

How certain are you that the above statement is true?

100%

All of modern biology is predicated upon descent with modification.

 

[Loudmouth]

However, as one who adheres to I.D. theory, I do not believe that if we evolved, that the process was unguided, blind, purposeless, and by chance. If we did evolve, it was under the superintendence of an intelligent designer who set the whole process in motion by creating the universe in the first place.

Here is the difference between our worldviews. You begin statements with "I believe . . .". I begin statements with "This evidence demonstrates . . .".

Notice the difference? I am interested in how reality works and operates. What you may or may not believe has no bearing on how reality works. I can believe that the moon is made of cheese, but stubbornly the moon does not magically turn into cheese.

I think this is the major point of miscommunication between scientists and ID supporters. ID supporters see this as a matter of belief. Scientists see it as a matter of finding explanations for what is going on in reality.

We all observe changes within certain species over time. Adaptation etc. etc. This is undeniable. But to take this fact and use it to justify the view that all life is the result of some random, unguided, purposeless, mindless, natural process acting upon matter over time is simply not science.

I agree. This is why scientists pursue other avenues of evidence. This is why they compare genomes from different species, to see if similarities and differences are consistent with evolutionary mechanisms. They also look at fossils to see if they have the mixture of characteristics that evolution predicts. Observation after observation is used to test the theory, and the theory of evolution has passed that testing with flying colors.

But there are dissenting voices making themselves heard now. Their numbers are increasing and I envision a time to come where Neo-Darwinism will be exposed for what it really is, wishful thinking masquerading as science and this is done by the same men and women who stand up and claim they are being "objective" and "unbiased" in their research.

Those dissenting voices keep themselves cloistered in echo chambers. They never engage the scientific community, they don't do research, they don't publish original peer reviewed papers, they don't apply for research grants, and they avoid science altogether. All they do is stand back and make baseless assertions just as you do above.

One of the many good aspects of science is that I believe there will always be some men and women scientists who are actually concerned about finding and seeking truth, instead of finding what they want to find or taking bits and pieces of truth and building an elaborate story around said truths to suit their fancy.

Too bad they can't be found within the ID movement.

And just to let you know, I personally think that if I were ever to present an argument to someone for the existence of God, it would be more along the lines of an argument from our observations of the fine-tuning of the universe itself. This argument I believe, is far more compelling than an argument centered on biological complexity. It is also not subject to objections from the Neo Darwinists because it has absolutely nothing to do with natural selection.

What are the chances that we would be able to observe a universe incapable of supporting life?

 

[Loudmouth]

But biologists like Richard Dawkins don't do this. They start by saying: "Any explanation for our discoveries MUST BE PURELY NATURALISTIC/MATERIALISTIC IN NATURE."

It is the theists who remove the supernatural from science. They are the ones claiming that science is not allowed to investigate the supernatural. It is theists who define the supernatural as having no discernable effect on the world around us. After centuries of watching scientific explanations replace supernatural explanations, theists are now removing the supernatural from scientific investigations to protect their beliefs.

People like Dawkins are always gonna find what they want to find because they are interpreting the evidence one way. That is simply not objective and anyone who behaves this way does not deserve the title of "scientist".

Projection at its finest.

 

[Elioenai26]

I am not going to get into a drawn out discussion or debate with you Loudmouth about I.D. or Neo-Darwinism, or anything else for that matter. I do not believe that it would be fruitful at the present.

However, I will say this:

Either my view is true or yours is true. They cannot both be true and they cannot both be false. Either we are the handiwork of a supernatural Creator and that Creator is Jesus Christ...

or...

we are the byproducts of a mindless, unguided, purposeless process within an ever expanding universe which sprang into existence out of nothing, by nothing, for nothing, which will one day expand until it can expand no more (this is an accurate summation of the Standard Model and of actual contemporary scientific findings in cosmology and astronomy all available for your viewing pleasure in the latest peer reviewed journals. Notice here, scientists do not count metaphysical theories and unsubstantiated hypothetical scenarios such as string theory and imaginary time as evidence).

Now, if your view is true, then when you die, you will cease to exist, or at least, that is all that the "evidence" shows. Dead body equals dead brain and no heart pumping. Dead brain equals no thoughts, no heart pumping equals no oxygen and blood to the brain and what not etc. etc. So no more Loudmouth.... no judgment for the things youve said and done in this life, no reward for the good. Nothing....No life beyond the grave...nothing...

Now, if my view is true, then whoever you really are, when you die, you will stand before Christ and give an account for how you lived your life and you will either be separated forever from God who is Love, or you will be with God forever.

Considering the utter severity and ultimate finality that is inherent in this latter scenario, I implore you to take a fresh look at the evidence available to you as objectively and as unbiased as you can. Follow it where it leads.

And remember what the French mathematician, theologian, logician, and physicist Blaise Pascal once said:

"People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive." De l'Art de persuader ("On the Art of Persuasion"), written 1658; published posthumously

Seek the truth my friend, and only the truth. If you desire it with all your heart, you shall find it.

 

[pjnlsn]

You're exactly right. I agree and everyone else also should agree with your statement as well. Just because humans are observed to be unimaginably complex that does not necessarily mean they are designed. Nor have I ever argued that. What I am arguing is this: even though it is logically possible that life as we know it could come about by an unguided, blind, purposeless process of evolution by "natural selection", is it rational to think this actually happened given the evidence we have? Utilizing IBE or inference to the best explanation, as objectively and as unbiased as we can possibly be, we must examine the evidence we have at our disposal and draw conclusions from it. You don't start out by saying: "I.D. theory is true....or Theism is true...or creationism is true....or Christianity is true....or Neo-Darwinism is true....or evolution by natural selection is true....or metgodilogical naturalism is true....

No no no....you don't START YOUR SEARCH FOR truth by saying or believing any of those things...

You start by simply saying: "Anything logically possible is possible."

Any explanation is a possible explanation so long as it is logically possible I.e. not self contradicting. And the best explanation will be the one that does not multiply probabilities beyond what is necessary to explain the subject in question, it will have the best explanatory power as well as scope.

But biologists like Richard Dawkins don't do this. They start by saying: "Any explanation for our discoveries MUST BE PURELY NATURALISTIC/MATERIALISTIC IN NATURE."

But this is so obviously begging the question. Starting out with this erroneous view is going to give you erroneous conclusions. Its like playing craps with loaded dice...or poker with a stacked deck. Its unfair and dishonest. People like Dawkins are always gonna find what they want to find because they are interpreting the evidence one way. That is simply not objective and anyone who behaves this way does not deserve the title of "scientist".

Right, well, it's good that you recognize that. But I don't know why it would be rational either, given, as I've already said, that the insubstantial nature of these concepts (deities, entities, 'beings') don't lend themselves to a critical analysis.

And if you really want to split everything into two categories, one being those idea involving deities and the other the opposite, it so happens that ideas belonging to one category are proven every day, and the other, never.

And even if a lot of people come to the conclusion, after seeing so many useful ideas come from one category, and none from the other, that there will never be any useful explanation from the latter category, this isn't 'dishonest,' this is just a probabilistic way of thinking, which is at least not strictly irrational, and happens to be a tendency among people.

 

[pjnlsn]

I am not going to get into a drawn out discussion or debate with you Loudmouth about I.D. or Neo-Darwinism, or anything else for that matter. I do not believe that it would be fruitful at the present.

However, I will say this:

Either my view is true or yours is true. They cannot both be true and they cannot both be false. Either we are the handiwork of a supernatural Creator and that Creator is Jesus Christ...

or...

we are the byproducts of a mindless, unguided, purposeless process within an ever expanding universe which sprang into existence out of nothing, by nothing, for nothing, which will one day expand until it can expand no more (this is an accurate summation of the Standard Model and of actual contemporary scientific findings in cosmology and astronomy all available for your viewing pleasure in the latest peer reviewed journals. Notice here, scientists do not count metaphysical theories and unsubstantiated hypothetical scenarios such as string theory and imaginary time as evidence).

Now, if your view is true, then when you die, you will cease to exist, or at least, that is all that the "evidence" shows. Dead body equals dead brain and no heart pumping. Dead brain equals no thoughts, no heart pumping equals no oxygen and blood to the brain and what not etc. etc. So no more Loudmouth.... no judgment for the things youve said and done in this life, no reward for the good. Nothing....No life beyond the grave...nothing...

Now, if my view is true, then whoever you really are, when you die, you will stand before Christ and give an account for how you lived your life and you will either be separated forever from God who is Love, or you will be with God forever.

Considering the utter severity and ultimate finality that is inherent in this latter scenario, I implore you to take a fresh look at the evidence available to you as objectively and as unbiased as you can. Follow it where it leads.

And remember what the French mathematician, theologian, logician, and physicist Blaise Pascal once said:

"People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive." De l'Art de persuader ("On the Art of Persuasion"), written 1658; published posthumously

Seek the truth my friend, and only the truth. If you desire it with all your heart, you shall find it.

And it's just ridiculous that you should quote Pascal, for most of what you've written is directly the judging of ideas based on attractiveness.

Some of your earlier posts in this post consist almost entirely of how you feel about the issue, and little of what Pascal, or anyone, would call proof.

 

[Elioenai26]

And it's just ridiculous that you should quote Pascal, for most of what you've written is directly the judging of ideas based on attractiveness.

Some of your earlier posts in this post consist almost entirely of how you feel about the issue, and little of what Pascal, or anyone, would call proof.

Attractiveness is a highly subjective concept. I assume you know this.

I can also supply quotes from atheists which will demonstrate that they were atheists because they believed that a world without God was more attractive than a world with God and this irrespective of the evidence.

All this shows is that some atheists are atheists not because there is a lack of evidence for God, but because they desire a world without God irrespective of what the truth actually is.

Is this the reason why all atheists are atheists? I will be charitable here and say no. I do honestly believe that there are some atheists who are honestly seeking the truth and will follow it wherever it leads.

You have labeled yourself as a seeker. I hope it is truth that you are seeking, and not the opinions of naturalistic, atheistic scientists, or even theists.

Christ has said that if we seek then we shall find....that if we knock....it shall be opened unto us. He has also said that if we seek Him with our whole heart, we shall find Him.

Lay aside for a moment, the rambling discourse of men, and meditate on the life of Christ my friend. In Him, you shall find what you seek.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not going to get into a drawn out discussion or debate with you Loudmouth about I.D. or Neo-Darwinism, or anything else for that matter. I do not believe that it would be fruitful at the present.

However, I will say this:

Either my view is true or yours is true. They cannot both be true and they cannot both be false. Either we are the handiwork of a supernatural Creator and that Creator is Jesus Christ...

or...

we are the byproducts of a mindless, unguided, purposeless process within an ever expanding universe which sprang into existence out of nothing, by nothing, for nothing, which will one day expand until it can expand no more (this is an accurate summation of the Standard Model and of actual contemporary scientific findings in cosmology and astronomy all available for your viewing pleasure in the latest peer reviewed journals. Notice here, scientists do not count metaphysical theories and unsubstantiated hypothetical scenarios such as string theory and imaginary time as evidence).

There is a third option. We are the product of an intelligent alien race that is not God. You should always shy away from these types of dichotomies.

As to determining which is true, that is where the scientific method comes in. The scientific method allows us to construct testable hypotheses, and then test them. ID refuses to follow this method. ID is intentionally constructed to be unfalsifiable so that ID is true no matter what the evidence is. Not so with evolution. The theory of evolution makes very specific and testable claims, and those hypotheses have passed testing for the last 150 years.

Now, if your view is true, then when you die, you will cease to exist, or at least, that is all that the "evidence" shows. Dead body equals dead brain and no heart pumping. Dead brain equals no thoughts, no heart pumping equals no oxygen and blood to the brain and what not etc. etc. So no more Loudmouth.... no judgment for the things youve said and done in this life, no reward for the good. Nothing....No life beyond the grave...nothing...

We are all judged by the people and society around us during our life times.

Now, if my view is true, then whoever you really are, when you die, you will stand before Christ and give an account for how you lived your life and you will either be separated forever from God who is Love, or you will be with God forever.

Considering the utter severity and ultimate finality that is inherent in this latter scenario, I implore you to take a fresh look at the evidence available to you as objectively and as unbiased as you can. Follow it where it leads.

Pascal's Wager for the loss.

Pascal's wager - RationalWiki

What if you are standing before Zeus, and he asks you why you never worshiped him? Even worse, he feels it necessary to punish you for worshipping a false god. What then? Perhaps he will let atheists off easier because even though we did not worship Zeus, at least we did not make the mistake of worshipping false gods.

Seek the truth my friend, and only the truth. If you desire it with all your heart, you shall find it.

ID supporters have stopped looking for the truth.

 

[Freodin]

However, I will say this:

Either my view is true or yours is true. They cannot both be true and they cannot both be false. Either we are the handiwork of a supernatural Creator and that Creator is Jesus Christ...

or...

we are the byproducts of a mindless, unguided, purposeless process within an ever expanding universe which sprang into existence out of nothing, by nothing, for nothing, which will one day expand until it can expand no more (this is an accurate summation of the Standard Model and of actual contemporary scientific findings in cosmology and astronomy all available for your viewing pleasure in the latest peer reviewed journals. Notice here, scientists do not count metaphysical theories and unsubstantiated hypothetical scenarios such as string theory and imaginary time as evidence).

It's really great to see that you follow your own advice of not excluding potential options that you personally disagree with.

Oh, wait... you do. You dogmatically put it down to an either or and exclude any other option.

I wonder why that is. (Just joking... I do not really wonder.)

 

[pjnlsn]

Attractiveness is a highly subjective concept. I assume you know this.

I can also supply quotes from atheists which will demonstrate that they were atheists because they believed that a world without God was more attractive than a world with God and this irrespective of the evidence.

All this shows is that some atheists are atheists not because there is a lack of evidence for God, but because they desire a world without God irrespective of what the truth actually is.

Is this the reason why all atheists are atheists? I will be charitable here and say no. I do honestly believe that there are some atheists who are honestly seeking the truth and will follow it wherever it leads.

You have labeled yourself as a seeker. I hope it is truth that you are seeking, and not the opinions of naturalistic, atheistic scientists, or even theists.

Christ has said that if we seek then we shall find....that if we knock....it shall be opened unto us. He has also said that if we seek Him with our whole heart, we shall find Him.

Lay aside for a moment, the rambling discourse of men, and meditate on the life of Christ my friend. In Him, you shall find what you seek.

The point of the quote is obviously that truth and an idea which is able to be proven are more closely linked than truth and what people find attractive, or whether they find the opposite unattractive. And one paragraph in the above is suggestive of this, but the rest of this post is filled with bare assertions of a religious nature. And then, again, "most of what you've written is directly the judging of ideas based on attractiveness. Some of your earlier posts in this post consist almost entirely of how you feel about the issue, and little of what Pascal, or anyone, would call proof."

You can point out the irrationality of linking truth to what one finds attractive, but this doesn't mean no one notices you haven't been doing the same thing, usually in the same post.

And even if every single person in the world is misguided in their opinions on anything, it doesn't mean that there is proof of a deity, or that this is possible given the most common definition of such, or that anything science has proven is actually invalid.

 

[Elioenai26]

Either we are the handiwork of our creator, or we are not. There is no third option. This seems quite evident to me.

Either God created us or God does not exist and we simply invented the concept which has no actual corresponding entity in reality.

Once again this seems quite evident.

Any talk of alien life such as those suggested by Francis Crick bringing life to earth is moot. The aliens are either the handiwork of God, or they are byproducts of blind, unguided natural processes.

Anything existing within the universe we know to be contingent upon something outside of itself for its existence. This is the inescapable conclusion of the Standard Model of the universe commonly referred to as the Big Bang. This means the universe itself is contingent upon something outside of itself for its existence. Unless of course you want to believe that the universe created itself.

 

[pjnlsn]

Either we are the handiwork of our creator, or we are not. There is no third option. This seems quite evident to me.

Either God created us or God does not exist and we simply invented the concept which has no actual corresponding entity in reality.

Once again this seems quite evident.

Any talk of alien life such as those suggested by Francis Crick bringing life to earth is moot. The aliens are either the handiwork of God, or they are byproducts of blind, unguided natural processes.

Anything existing within the universe we know to be contingent upon something outside of itself for its existence. This is the inescapable conclusion of the Standard Model of the universe commonly referred to as the Big Bang. This means the universe itself is contingent upon something outside of itself for its existence. Unless of course you want to believe that the universe created itself.

It's a philosophical assumption that everything must have an explanation, you don't need the standard model for that.

But that there must be an explanation for something (the entirety of the universe or otherwise) does not mean the explanation must involve a deity. And, again, if you really want to split all ideas into two categories, one involving a deity, the other, the opposite, ideas from one category are proven every day, from the other, never.

 

[Loudmouth]

Either we are the handiwork of our creator, or we are not. There is no third option. This seems quite evident to me.

This is different than the dichotomy you used before:

Either my view is true or yours is true. They cannot both be true and they cannot both be false. Either we are the handiwork of a supernatural Creator and that Creator is Jesus Christ...

or...

we are the byproducts of a mindless, unguided, purposeless process within an ever expanding universe which sprang into existence out of nothing, by nothing, for nothing, which will one day expand until it can expand no more (this is an accurate summation of the Standard Model and of actual contemporary scientific findings in cosmology and astronomy all available for your viewing pleasure in the latest peer reviewed journals. Notice here, scientists do not count metaphysical theories and unsubstantiated hypothetical scenarios such as string theory and imaginary time as evidence).
--Elioenai26

​

That is the dichotomy we are talking about. Either your God or evolution. You missed the other thousands of other possibilities, such as guided natural mechanisms or other deities. And here you were lecturing us on ignoring possibilities . . .

Anything existing within the universe we know to be contingent upon something outside of itself for its existence. This is the inescapable conclusion of the Standard Model of the universe commonly referred to as the Big Bang. This means the universe itself is contingent upon something outside of itself for its existence. Unless of course you want to believe that the universe created itself.

Why does this something outside of our universe need to be a deity?

 

[Elioenai26]

This is different than the dichotomy you used before:

Either my view is true or yours is true. They cannot both be true and they cannot both be false. Either we are the handiwork of a supernatural Creator and that Creator is Jesus Christ...

or...

we are the byproducts of a mindless, unguided, purposeless process within an ever expanding universe which sprang into existence out of nothing, by nothing, for nothing, which will one day expand until it can expand no more (this is an accurate summation of the Standard Model and of actual contemporary scientific findings in cosmology and astronomy all available for your viewing pleasure in the latest peer reviewed journals. Notice here, scientists do not count metaphysical theories and unsubstantiated hypothetical scenarios such as string theory and imaginary time as evidence).
--Elioenai26

​

That is the dichotomy we are talking about. Either your God or evolution. You missed the other thousands of other possibilities, such as guided natural mechanisms or other deities. And here you were lecturing us on ignoring possibilities . . .



Why does this something outside of our universe need to be a deity?

As I have maintained all along, either we are the handiwork of our Creator or we are not. There is no third option and therefore the charge of presenting you with a false dichotomy fails.

Nor have I ever said the words: "My God or evolution", nor have I ever even insinuated that that was my view. Never. So you are misrepresenting my position.

In fact, in one of my posts, I made it very clear that I personally see no contradiction between the Genesis accounts of creation and the theory that creatures evolved from a common ancestor. In fact, I have also made it clear that creatures evolving and adapting to their environment is undeniable.

What I do maintain is that this process of evolution, if true, was guided and purposed by the Creator of the cosmos. The unjustified extrapolation of the undeniable truth of biological adaptation to encompass and explain all of reality in purely naturalistic and materialistic terms is not science. It is essentially the crafting of an unfalsifiable theory by a handful of men and women who desire to reinforce their biased presuppositions about reality.

I think it is actually funny in a way. You have this small group of people which make up a very miniscule percentage of the population who want their words to be taken as "law" and "truth" and use their positions of what influence they have to try as hard as they can to advance their ideologies, and the whole time this striving and struggling is going on, the average person could care less! At the end of the day, the average person could really care less about what a scientist has to say regarding their "discoveries" or "findings". At the end of the day, the average person is always going to be more concerned about the bills they have to pay, the loved ones they have to take care of, the taxes they have to pay, and how they are going to spend what little free time they have. People want to be loved, and to feel wanted. I guarantee you and anyone else in here that when the average person receives news that their loved one is dying of cancer, or has been in an accident and is injured, or is lying on their deathbed gasping for every breath, or has unexpectedly lost their job, that they are not going to be thinking about the latest discoveries and findings of scientists, or the theories and speculations of people like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking, or false dichotomies, logical fallacies, and biological evolution by natural selection being a better theory than I.D.

No, no, no. In those moments, they are going to be concerned about being there for their loved ones and making it through the tough times.

So while science as a pursuit to know more about our world is good, it is not going to replace good old fashioned love, compassion, and faith in the One who can sustain us when the scientists and all of their "findings" are unable to help us.

And by the way, I am sure you understand that there are prominent Christian scientists who believe that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive, but that they are complimentary. Just thought you might want to know that.

 

[pjnlsn]

As I have maintained all along, either we are the handiwork of our Creator or we are not. There is no third option and therefore the charge of presenting you with a false dichotomy fails.

Nor have I ever said the words: "My God or evolution", nor have I ever even insinuated that that was my view. Never. So you are misrepresenting my position.

In fact, in one of my posts, I made it very clear that I personally see no contradiction between the Genesis accounts of creation and the theory that creatures evolved from a common ancestor. In fact, I have also made it clear that creatures evolving and adapting to their environment is undeniable.

What I do maintain is that this process of evolution, if true, was guided and purposed by the Creator of the cosmos.

I am sure you understand that there are prominent Christian scientists who believe that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive.

Well that's good that you recognize this aspect of biology.

But, again, because of their insubstantial nature, claims that these concepts (deities, entities, 'beings,' or 'Creators') exist in reality do not lend themselves to a critical analysis.

 

[Elioenai26]

Well that's good that you recognize this aspect of biology.

But, again, because of their insubstantial nature, claims that these concepts (deities, entities, 'beings,' or 'Creators') exist in reality do not lend themselves to a critical analysis.

What criteria are you utilizing to arrive at the conclusion that claims regarding the existence of God are insubstantial in nature? When was this criteria formulated? How was it formulated? Who formulated it? Who uses this criteria in their investigative research other than yourself? Why this particular set of criteria as opposed to another? What worldview is this criteria based on?

I can think of numerous questions regarding this criteria which you are basing your statement on. So if you want, start with the first question and answer them in succession if you are able to. I am eager to hear your replies.

Your saying that theistic claims are insubstantial in nature does not make them insubstantial in nature. There must be some kind of epistemic warrant or in layman's terms, some good reason to believe that theistic claims are insubstantial in nature. And what is a "good reason" to you, may not be a good reason to me.

So where does that leave you?

 

[Ken-1122]

However, I will say this:

Either my view is true or yours is true. They cannot both be true and they cannot both be false. Either we are the handiwork of a supernatural Creator and that Creator is Jesus Christ...

or...

we are the byproducts of a mindless, unguided, purposeless process within an ever expanding universe which sprang into existence out of nothing, by nothing, for nothing, which will one day expand until it can expand no more

Maybe life, has always existed.

K