Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[Oncedeceived]

I know this and you know this. Oncedeceived doesn't want to know this. Which is what I was trying to make here understand. But she doesn't want to understand. She's obviously a literalist unable to put terms into proper context and understand that words can mean different things in different sentences.

We can also say from a biological perspective that life is "designed". We off course mean that it was "designed" by a process powered by natural forces and through a natural "filter". But say that to oncedeceived (or justlookinla or many others here) and all they will hear is "designed ha? therefor: designer".

It's incredibly annoying. I don't know what to do to make these people understand this. So I considered it my best shot to play there "literalist" game and simply stop using words of which I know in advance that they would misunderstad and/or misuse them.

I don't know what the correct strategy is here. There probably is none. As the saying goes: you can lead a horse to water...

The sad thing here is that due to your own worldview you can't understand why fine tuning is viewed as a feasible rational conclusion to take considering the extreme coincidences that allow the universe to even have rational intelligent observers to observe it.

 

[bhsmte]

But you said that if they take their religion by faith they are less vulnerable about reality as if they were living in a fantasy world anyway. Why do you feel so comfortable with belief on faith? Could it be that if someone believes on faith you have no accountability towards evidence of God? Even Christopher Hitchens said that the fine tuning was a reasonable position for a theist.

Yeah. The fine-tuning, that one degree, well, one degree, one hair different of nothing—that even though it doesn’t prove design, doesn’t prove a Designer, [the fine-tuning] could have all happened without [God]— You have to spend time thinking about it, working on it. It’s not a trivial [argument]. We all say that.

Not quite.

I stated those who can accept well evidenced reality and also are willing to accept their religious beliefs are on faith alone, are much less vulnerable to reality and their faith is sound, because it does not pretend to have objective evidence, or need to ignore well evidenced reality.

Some can not accept their religious beliefs are on faith alone and need to convince themselves, they have objective evidence to support their religious beliefs. These are the folks, that get exposed when asked to provide the evidence and go into serious scramble mode.

This thread is a great example of the same.

Hope that clears it up.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As a former Christian, I can empathize with this thought process. It's accepted, a priori, that god exists, so naturally he 'did it,' it's just a matter of time before we can prove it, and why don't all the rest of you unChristians just see what we see, type mentality.

Then that was your problem not mine. I did not accept a priori that God existed. I thought the possibility existed. I had no preconceived ideas that God existed as I did not come from a home where God was ever discussed, it was a non-issue in my childhood.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't remember who said it... But it reminds me of the saying: "you can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themself into..."

It certainly applies here.

I like a challenge though, lol

What "reason" did you use to come to the conclusion that fine tuning is not significant in why we are here?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I never was a theist. I had a secular education and religion was a non-issue. The first time I picked up a bible, I was 16 or 17. And the only reason I picked it up was because I switched schools. From a state school to a catholic one. I got expelled from the religious class after a couple of months for the rest of the year, because I argued to much LOL.

It just amazed me. It was such obvious nonsense in my eyes. That whole world was completely alien to me. Theists, in my eyes, were no different then alien abductees or Trekkies.

Till this day, a part of my brain can simply not accept or understand that people can believe this stuff and think like this. I have a really hard time empathizing with it.

I have better understanding of psychology and stuff now that I'm older and know a bit more about cultures etc... But still... It's very hard for me to "get".

The reason it is so hard for you to "get" is that God has not revealed Himself to you. You have a worldview based on naturalism. You have a lack of evidence of God in your life. You claim others lack reason but we just have reason and evidence that you don't have.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The reason it is so hard for you to "get" is that God has not revealed Himself to you. You have a worldview based on naturalism. You have a lack of evidence of God in your life. You claim others lack reason but we just have reason and evidence that you don't have.

Then you should understand then why we don't believe in the same things you do. Your personal revelation of god in your life won't be applicable to ours, so it would be unreasonable for you to expect us to believe as you do based on your arguments

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is exactly why religion need to get to the kids first and brain wash 'em before they know what hit them, the "faith like a child" canard.

Or get kids intrenched into the naturalistic worldview before they know what hit them? It works both ways it seems.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Or get kids intrenched into the naturalistic worldview before they know what hit them? It works both ways it seems.

Most atheists grow up in religious households.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It doesn't take faith or stuffing to accept that nature exists.

That is true but it does take faith to accept certain naturalistic worldviews. It takes faith to believe that everything just happened by chance alone.

 

[bhsmte]

Most atheists grow up in religious households.

Very true.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is true but it does take faith to accept certain naturalistic worldviews. It takes faith to believe that everything just happened by chance alone.

It doesn't take faith to reject your religious claims that are not supported by any evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Or get kids intrenched into the naturalistic worldview before they know what hit them? It works both ways it seems.

They even learn that infectious diseases are caused by germs, and that atoms behave according to natural laws. EGADS!!!!!

 

[JayFern]

What "reason" did you use to come to the conclusion that fine tuning is not significant in why we are here?

The reason is simple we have no way of knowing or showing it to be true, it's like finding a dollar bill and stating that you were meant to find it, after all you found it so it should be obvious to everyone that it was meant to be.

 

[Davian]

So you feel that fine tuning is an unfalsifiable claim from Scientists in their field?

Yes, and you conceded that, here.

Religions beliefs are like a house of cards, secured in a bank vault - the door cannot be opened to scrutiny, lest the lightest breeze knock it down.

Your opinion and nothing more.

If you ever open that door, let me know.

 

[Davian]

That is true but it does take faith to accept certain naturalistic worldviews. It takes faith to believe that everything just happened by chance alone.

Does water flow downhill, to form streams and rivers, by chance?

 

[Oncedeceived]

We have discovered more than a dozen planets so similar to earth it is eerie. We just do not have the technology to go visit them to see if life is present on those planets. There is no way of knowing exactly how rare life is, for all we know literally every planet with the right conditions will have some form of life if nothing catastrophic prevents it.

Then stop mentioning fine-tuning as used by these people as if it is relevant to your position please

No. I am not going to stop mentioning fine tuning is relevant to my position because even those scientists that do not hold my position think it is a reasonable conclusion. They may not think that it is true, they may think that the conclusion one that science does not accept but many who are atheists too feel it is a reasonable conclusion.

In fact so reasonable that the multiverse is the other most reasonable option to those who don't want God:

“If there is only one universe,” Brandon Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”

 

[Oncedeceived]

Does water flow downhill, to form streams and rivers, by chance?

Not relevant.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No. I am not going to stop mentioning fine tuning is relevant to my position because even those scientists that do not hold my position think it is a reasonable conclusion. They may not think that it is true, they may think that the conclusion one that science does not accept but many who are atheists too feel it is a reasonable conclusion.

In fact so reasonable that the multiverse is the other most reasonable option to those who don't want God:

“If there is only one universe,” Brandon Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”

I never claimed you were being unreasonable, but here's the thing:

1. You are claiming fine tuning by a deity
2. Some professionals claim the universe LOOKS fine tuned, but most do not claim it actually is, let alone by a deity
3. How on earth does this support your position?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, and you conceded that, here.

I didn't say that fine tuning was unfalsifiable.

If you ever open that door, let me know.

I don't know what you are referring to.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not relevant.

The usual response from Oncedeceived when her arguments are destroyed.