For The Undecided Populous, Who Are Reading All These Threads....

I am not undecided. As one who is decidedly theistic but still a skeptic, I think the greatest points of persuasion are 1) the existence of inherent information in the universe, 2) the simultaneous existence of both chaos and order (either one is easy to explain but both are not), and 3) the existence of creatures who do and can know the knowable inherent information. Cosmology and evolution assume these conditions; they do not explain these conditions (some dispute their existence).

I'm undecided but incapable of faith. Without faith, religion doesn't work too well for me. The theology forums do help me explore various ideas on the nature of things.

More importantly, the forums help me understand the outlooks of others. I like to look at arguments from all sides, and it helps to know exactly what those sides are.

cvanwey said:

Yes, all these are intriguing... Do you mind me asking, does Christianity posit the possibility to answering any of these concerns? If so, care to bring forth a [more specific] argument which speaks to you the most?

If Christianity does not seem to tick or check any/all of the boxes, then I guess, thanks for your response all-the-same

Click to expand...

The existence of inherent information, not just attributed information, implies a previously existing source for that possessing information that possesses intelligence. That this information is knowable and there exist creatures with the ability to know the knowable applies sentient intelligence.

cvanwey said:

Okay. Let me ask you the following, if you do not mind...

Does this topic lend any more or less credence to the assertions for Christianity specifically? If yes, how so?

If no, I can't help but to wonder why you label yourself a Christian?

Click to expand...

Great question. However, it warrants some clarification or qualification.

Let me say this. t is not rationally possible for a finite creature to prove the existence of an Infinite Entity. This is especially so of any God that has not made Him/Her/Itself known. That would be somewhat akin to the amoeba trying understand the elephant.... when the elephant exists outside the universe.

However, there are some things we can understand simply as a function of logical necessity that will disprove certain theisms. For instance, any theology that asserts a god that exists solely within the universe is logically untenable because that god would be subject to the limits of the universe. The god would be limited by such things as time and space (which are really variations on the common theme of singularity). In comparison to an externally, pre-existing God the internal god is no match. Similarly all polytheisms can be discarded because there can be no almighty God. There can be many superior life forms we might call gods, but none are omni-attributed big-G Gods. I didn't have the time to work through this If... then... else... syllogism in all cases with you this morning but (assuming you know something about other religions) I suspect you can get a fair bit of the way on your own and realize there aren't many theisms that meet the logically necessary criteria the way the God of the Bible does.

So the short answer is, "Yes, my op-reply does lend more credence to the assertions of Christianity specifically," but that answer does not due justice to the complexity of the topic.



I don't label myself a Christian. That would be a red herring. When I read digressive content I will point it out. I assume you can accept that. Similarly, I don't call myself a Christian because of this particular apologetic about inherent information. I call myself a Christian because I had a personal experience similar to Saul's on the road to Damascus and converted to Christianity from Buddhism because my understanding of reality changed. That has nothing to do with my op-reply.

I appreciate the link to the other op, but it has nothing to do with this op. I find some flaws in that op but that op is much more complex than the single simple question asked in this op: what arguments resonate the most? And since that op already has several pages of posts to it I'm not inclined to respond to it as a late-comer. I may read through some of the posts to get a summary feel for the topics/positions discussed but I have to say your ability to maintain cogent discourse here in this op will be the most persuasive evidence for my choice to post or not post to that op.


That being said, please read through this entire post before replying because I'm not interested in a line-by-line response. I have one singular interest and your ability to be thusly responsive will be persuasive one way or anther for my continued participation.

cvanwey said:

Care to share the above, in red?

Click to expand...

??????? I just got done stating it was all digressive and I wasn't interested in going far afield of my op reply. Why would I care to do something I just said I didn't want to do? Why would I be asked such a thing?

"I don't want to do X."
"Care to do X?"

Does that read as cogent discourse to you? Do please let me know because I will respond accordingly.


This op asks a question about arguments that "resonate more so than others," and I provided three, specifying one more preeminent over the other two. That is what I brought to bear on this op. That is is the point of comment for me in this op. Everything else is digressive. I'm happy to discuss anything else, once the op-reply is discussed.

This is important because I don't trade posts with posters who can't stay on-topic or stay relevant to a given thread. If the matter of inherent information is ignored in favor of personal anecdotal experience (something I doubt you'll find much veracity in logically), then what hope do I have the topic won't later be changed to something else that strikes your interest and then changed again and changed again and again with nothing ever discussed with any substance?




The argument that I find resonates above all others is the problem of explaining the existence of inherent information, not merely the existence of raw data to which meaning is attributed. There are other contextual concerns, such as the knowability of that inherently existing information and the nature of that information, but the point to be discussed is the existence of inherent information. If you can discuss that then I'm game. Otherwise, I've made my contribution to the op and if no further discussion on that matter is desired I am content to move on.

You choose.

cvanwey said:

We have theists, who argue for their position.
We have atheists, who may also argue for their position.
We also have all in between, and all over.....

Seems as though many/most here have already arrived at their conclusions; and may more-so be here for entertainment, sport, to validate their current positions, and/or maybe just like to argue a bit..?

Click to expand...

Hey again cvanwey. All of the reasons you listed are things I would agree with as motivation for me being here. If I were to phrase it on my own, I'd say it like this:

Unremarkably, I'm an ex-Christian atheist. While my faith was unraveling, I was asking all of the questions that I had previously held back. The dam broke, bursted, and was carried out to sea. No one gave a serious effort to answer my questions, so I started asking even harder. I guess I just never stopped.

They say he's still trying to get them to give him a straight answer to this very day...

Personally, I'm more-so still here to see if my current positions hold any water, and happily place them here, in the apologetics arena (i.e.) the chopping block.

Click to expand...

Atheist forums would be a better place to test your ideas. The people here are to test your patience.

I work in education, so I need to keep my patience high. Also, I see lots of kids who are brainwashed and I can't say anything, so I jump on here instead.

Here's my question(s) to all the ones, whom are legitimately undecided....

Does the apologetics forum arena lend any 'knowledge', and possibly persuade or facilitate any particular position one way or the other? Or are you folks here merely for entertainment, other?

Is there any arguments, which resonate more-so than others? If so, how so? And what might those arguments and/or subject matter be?

Click to expand...

Every last atheist *should* be undecided since God will never declare his own existence and we cannot prove a negative. So I can actually answer your questions.

I've found almost nothing of value here. Nearly every bullet I've fired has hit a vital organ aside from the issue of fine tuning. I think fine tuning is the one issue that is possibly 50/50 and is definitely, absolutely the only thing that theists should pursue. Unfortunately, if you've come to the conclusion that a God definitely exists then your logic is already compromised - and that certainly shows when they try to make arguments on fine tuning. No argument I've ever seen on the issue has been error free, but I cannot help but infer the most charitable interpretation and I've gleaned enough from there to know it's a separate category from the list of terrible and stupid arguments like prophecy, why die for a lie?, "eyewitnesses of the resurrection", and so on.

cvanwey said:

Is the cited argument in any relation to the 'argument from consciousness'? If no, then please clarify a bit further, as to your current understanding, or conclusion about your presented topic?

Click to expand...

Clarify the inquiry. How do you construe "argument from consciousness" to be related to the existence fo iherent information in the universe?

cvanwey said:

I don't know that it does??? Can you please expound upon your topic a bit? (i.e.)

1. Further explain exactly what this argument proposes
2. Where your current position lands, regarding this specific topic

If I agree, then there might not be much to 'debate'

Click to expand...

Do you understand the concept of "inherent information"?

cvanwey said:

In part, I can certainly relate. I hear a lot of unfounded assertions at my place of work, from some family members, etc... Rather than offer discord in the professional and personal arena, it seems to be somewhat of a release to instead only vet them here; and ignore the outward vocal assertions from family, co-workers, etc.



And I appreciate that...



What about it appears persuasive? And if apologists were to somehow present a case, for which you could not refute, would you then change your position? (i.e.) At least become a generic deist, or other?



At present, I tend to agree here, thus far. Seems as though, one has no choice but to invoke some form of fallacious reasoning, to conclude not only god(s), but a specific god.

Click to expand...

It's impossible for Christians to fully embrace fine tuning because the core idea contradicts their core theology.

The core idea of fine tuning is that we finely tune things as a result of external constraints. There are no and can be no external restraints on an all-powerful deity. Simply put, an all-powerful god has no need for fine tuning. He can do whatever he wants. For example, let's say that we don't fine-tune the strong nuclear force. Let's say its new effective radius is now much, much smaller - to the point that it is virtually non-existent. We'd expect atoms to fly apart as the positive protons repel each other. But there's no reason that God couldn't just hold it all together.

For an all-powerful God to finely tune a universe is like a video game player enabling every single cheat mode in the game, setting it to the easiest mode possible, and then playing as though there are no cheats and he's on the hardest setting. Why... would he do that?

I think Christians know that the logical conclusion of fine-tuning is that there exists some deity with limited powers, but they warp their facts and logic to fit their conclusion. Nothing new there, of course. That's how it's been done since before I was born!

So... could fine tuning convince you or me that there is some cosmic deity out there who either made the universe or had a hand in doing so? Maybe... but there are other explanations that fit the data just as well, and the lack of direct observation of what is actually happening (a cosmic tinkerer vs infinite parallel universes vs universes procreating and evolving vs simulation theory) means that a definitive, positive conclusion is just absurd and illogical.

Josheb said:

I am not undecided. As one who is decidedly theistic but still a skeptic, I think the greatest points of persuasion are 1) the existence of inherent information in the universe, 2) the simultaneous existence of both chaos and order (either one is easy to explain but both are not), and 3) the existence of creatures who do and can know the knowable inherent information. Cosmology and evolution assume these conditions; they do not explain these conditions (some dispute their existence).

Click to expand...

Josheb said:

The existence of inherent information, not just attributed information, implies a previously existing source for that possessing information that possesses intelligence. That this information is knowable and there exist creatures with the ability to know the knowable applies sentient intelligence.

Click to expand...

Not sure I follow your argument. My understanding is information, like matter and energy, is neither created nor destroyed. Your "solution" to this "problem" is that conservation of information is violated?

cvanwey said:

would like you to expand upon your argument?

Click to expand...

Nihilist Virus said:

Not sure I follow your argument. My understanding is information, like matter and energy, is neither created nor destroyed. Your "solution" to this "problem" is that conservation of information is violated?

Click to expand...

Data is neither created nor destroyed. Information is not the same thing as data. Data is raw and meaningless. Information is data with meaning. Information comes in two forms: data with which meaning inherently exists and data to which meaning is assigned.

For example, we do a research project and accumulate data and then examine that data to decide what it means. Absent our structured analysis and assigning of meaning the data simply and solely exists, absent any assigned meaning.

So, again: for example, we measure wind patterns. They are just wind patterns and may or may not have any meaning in and of themselves. Because we are warm blooded creatures we examine wind patterns relevant to the temperature changes to which they contribute. Or because we're moral creatures we examine wind to determine hurricanes or tornadoes because such things can be destructive and destruction is "bad" given certain moral perspectives.

There are, however, conditions in which information inherently exists whether there is a human around to ever discover that meaning. In fact, the word "discover" is somewhat a misnomer because we aren't so much as discovering as uncovering that which has always existed.

And since inherent meaning necessarily implies some form of pre-existing intelligence we have reason to believe there is something more. In the case of theism we theists take this as evidence for God. In the case of non-theism there is yet to exist an explanation for this information and the implications thereof. That's not to say there can't be a materialist explanation or that one won't be figured out; only that currently the evidence objectively leans for the existence of pre-existing intelligence, and intelligence on the scale that it can structure or organize the entire uni/multiverse either creatively or somehow after the fact.

Josheb said:

Data is neither created nor destroyed. Information is not the same thing as data. Data is raw and meaningless. Information is data with meaning. Information comes in two forms: data with which meaning inherently exists and data to which meaning is assigned.

For example, we do a research project and accumulate data and then examine that data to decide what it means. Absent our structured analysis and assigning of meaning the data simply and solely exists, absent any assigned meaning.

So, again: for example, we measure wind patterns. They are just wind patterns and may or may not have any meaning in and of themselves. Because we are warm blooded creatures we examine wind patterns relevant to the temperature changes to which they contribute. Or because we're moral creatures we examine wind to determine hurricanes or tornadoes because such things can be destructive and destruction is "bad" given certain moral perspectives.

There are, however, conditions in which information inherently exists whether there is a human around to ever discover that meaning. In fact, the word "discover" is somewhat a misnomer because we aren't so much as discovering as uncovering that which has always existed.

And since inherent meaning necessarily implies some form of pre-existing intelligence we have reason to believe there is something more. In the case of theism we theists take this as evidence for God. In the case of non-theism there is yet to exist an explanation for this information and the implications thereof. That's not to say there can't be a materialist explanation or that one won't be figured out; only that currently the evidence objectively leans for the existence of pre-existing intelligence, and intelligence on the scale that it can structure or organize the entire uni/multiverse either creatively or somehow after the fact.

Click to expand...

Got an example of this inherent meaning which occurs in nature apart from human observation?