Do you think evolution is a religion? why or why not?

[Morat]

Sorry, but not fully described. How do you know that God isn't necessary for any of these to happen? Have you ever seen them happen where you know God is absent? This is the statement of faith of atheism: that natural = without deity. You don't know that. That's part of the limitation of how we do experiments and what methodological materialism is all about. Experiments have "controls", and there's no way to set up an control for deity. We can not point to a test tube or a lightning bolt and say "God isn't in that one." Until you do, your statement is completely unscientific. Not only that, it is very harmful for science because you are coopting science for your faith.

Do you even bother to read my posts? Or do you simply just assume what I mean, and don't bother to find out what I'm saying?

As I stated clear, I don't know God isn't necessary. I said that about a dozen times. Your inabilty to realize that makes me doubt you're really paying attention to this conversation. Perhaps you'd be happier arguing with a sock puppet?

I don't know God exists. However, since I don't have any reason to suspect he does, I assume he doesn't. I do the same thing with every other concept in my life, whether it's deities or gas stations, or TV shows.

If I don't have a reason to believe something exists, I assume they don't.

It's not faith because, as I've stated several times, I'm quite aware it's an assumption, and one subject to change.

Your argument is rather ridiculous, Lucapsa. According to your logic, my atheism became a faith statement the moment I heard about the concept of "God", despite the fact that both before and after I heard about "God" I didn't think he existed, for the exact same reasons: I had no reason to believe one existed.

Your entire post is handwaving around that simple fact.

I don't have a reason to believe in God, therefore I don't. If I had never heard of the God-concept, my worldview would be exactly the same, for exactly the same reason. Yet you claim one way is faith, and the other is not!

I don't call it agnosticism. I simply call it atheism "Weak" atheism is a self-deception by atheists since you have already admitted you have to go to strong atheism to get rid of God in nature.

What a mature, thoughtful tact, Lucapsa. "You're lying". What an excellent response.

Your original statement "I don't believe because I have no reason to believe" fits between. Your statements since then have put you into strong atheism. Which is, of course, what I predicted when I said that your original position wasn't stable. That it degenerated into either agnosticism or strong atheism. Thank you for demonstrating that so well

Really? Strong Atheism, huh? Then you'll be able to quote me claiming "God does not and cannot exist"?

Oh wait, you can't. Are you sure you're reading my words? Because I have been quite clear, on several occasions, that I don't believe in God because I don't have a reason to, but that I freely acknowledge he could despite the lack of evidence. That I could, in fact, be utterly wrong.

I haven't degenerated into strong atheism, and it's becoming more and more clear that you're not even reading my words. Would you like to handle both sides of this conversation from now on?

And you said that theism had to have objective experience, remember? If subjective experience is good for you, why isn't it good enough for theists? Double standard, here.

Only if you're not listening to me. I never said theists had to have objective evidence for God. None I know do.

I stated, quite simply, that I had no objective evidence for God. Your standards of evidence are your own. Mine requires objective evidence for things, before I believe they exist.

Depending on how contrary the claim is to my personal experience, the more objective evidence I require. The claim that you own a horse has a pretty low bar. The claim that you own a griffon, on the other hand, has a pretty high bar.

I've seen horses. I know people that own them. Can't say the same about griffon's.

Yep. The author of that gospel thought that the evidence should be convincing. You disagree. So what we have is that theists present evidence. You reject it. Now, tell me how that is basically any different from what happens in the evolution vs creationism debate. Creationists claim transitional fossils don't exist (there is no evidence for macroevolution). We present series of transitional fossils. They reject them. Sound familiar? It's exactly what you do. So if the creationists have "faith", then why are you any different?

Really? So, you're saying that I could go see Jesus for myself, meet the man, watch him die and then rise from the dead?

Because I can go do that for fossils. I've seen transitional fossil's myself. I'm afraid I've never seen Jesus.

Morat, without evolution, atheists have no answer to the Argument from Design.

So? Without the ideal gas law, I'd have no explanation for the behavior of gasses.

In Natural Theology David Hume examined all the arguments for the existence of deity. He was able to knock holes in all of them except the Argument from Design. Hume had to cave to the AfD. He saved face by calling it "Mind" instead of "God", but he had to surrender all the same. Hume wrote, of course, before Origin was published. Darwin gave a method -- Darwinian selection -- to get design. No longer did organisms have to be manufactured by a deity and placed on the planet to have the designs they have. They can be designed by Darwinian selection. Look at the ID movement. It is one long argument that Darwinian selection is not sufficient to get design. CSI, IC, etc. are all arguments trying to show the insufficiency of Darwinian selection. Do that and the AfD is back as logical "proof" of the existence of deity.

So? Why do I care what Hume was able (or wasn't able) to do?

You seem to think that, without evolution, the argument from design is irrefutable. Given that even a simple look at how living things work show that, if they were designed, the designer was drunk, isn't exactly a compelling argument.

The history of the human race has been the history of supernatural explanations falling to the natural.

Falsify evolution tommorow. The Argument from Design still won't be compelling, because I have no way to reject the possibility than an unknown natural process might have created the appearance of design.

I know natural proccesses exist, and I know that some can simulate design.

I wouldn't find the Argument from Design compelling until it manages to show that no natural process could create such an appearance. And, frankly, then you'd have to rule out aliens.

I understand that. I didn't say you wouldn't be an atheist. I said that you would not be able to deceive yourself that your atheism wasn't a faith.

I love this. You can't point to a faith statement in my words, so you claim I'm "decieving myself" about what I think.

The claim is that evolution allows you to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist" and allows your self-deception that your atheism is not a faith.

It's not my claim. Evolution gives me a nice explanation of the origins of life. Just like the ideal gas law gives me a nice explanation of the behavior of gasses.

You seem to place an emphasis on it that I do not. All you've managed to prove is that you, should you flip to atheism without ever changing how you think, your atheism would be one based on faith.

But I don't think like you do, and it's somewhat disheartening to watch you tell me how I think, without ever listening to to what I say.

I understand you are ducking the question, then. And engaging in circular reasoning. But of course you consider the issue, because you say "I can say quite certain that God is not necessary for natural processes to occur, because these processes are, by definition, processes that don't <I>need</I> God."

So, you are saying that "God didn't do it". You have considered the question and come up with an incorrect answer. But you considered the question. Don't try to tell us you didn't.

It's ducking the question to you, because you believe God exists.

But to me, dear Lucapsa, you're bypassing the core question to me.

Sure I have, because people like you keep insisting I do. Without you guys, I'd never even have come up with God, because I would have no reason to invent him.

Yet you claim that because I've been told about God, I'm making a faith statement, yet if I merely had never encountered the concept, I wouldn't be.

LOL! If you did you would realize that IPU is falsified. After all, it it's invisible, it can't be pink. So you don't treat all versions of deity the same, do you?

Do you know what replaced logical positivism, since you brought it up?

If you do, then you'll know that the unicorn can be pink and invisible. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it wouldn't be pink if you could. After all, the pink unicorn behind you is invisible to you, but still pink.

Modern philosopy. With the fall of logical positivism, we're stuck with the fact that there is no way to show the parrot is dead, that cannot be explained away.

Sure you'd be an atheist. You simply wouldn't have that name for it

Where would be the faith, Lucapsa?

. After all, you said I'd still have the exact same worldview. Since it is the worldview that is atheism, you'd still be an atheist. You'd just lack the imagination to hypothesize the existence of a deity.

No. The need. That's the issue you keep avoiding. I don't invent entities without need.

I don't believe in things without reason. You do the same thing, except for God.

Although when you contemplated the questions "why does the universe exist at all?" and "why does it have this order rather than some other order?" you should have hypothesized that an entity/deity created the universe that way.

*laugh*. Why on earth would I do that? What's wrong with saying, simply, "I don't know, but it will be fun to find out?"

Or even, simply, "I doubt I'll ever know"? Why on earth would I invent an entity and claim he did it? And even then, how would I know I was right?

*laugh*. That would be real faith. Making up something, claiming it was the answer, then moving on is faith.

And at that point you would have "rejected" the hypothesis because "I have no reason to think that a deity did created the universe." And your rejection would be a matter of faith, not a conclusion of science or data.

Do you really believe this tripe?

 

[Morat]

Seebs:

BTW, Morat, it may interest you to know that I consider the standards of evidence themselves to be matters of faith, and also the belief that logic is a reliable way to proceed from true premises to true conclusions. I accepted these things on faith when I realized that I had no other tools. And yes, it's circular for me to use logic in the process of deciding to use logic, but that's *why* it's an article of faith - because I can't even get my brain to form a concept of an alternative. Since I haven't compared logic with any meaningful alternatives, I have to admit it's pure faith for now.

Yes, I know. I'm perfectly willing to accept (at least for the sake of argument) that my standards of evidence are based on faith, or even that logic is faith.

However, neither of them are part of my atheism. You might claim that, as fundamental to how I think, my atheism flows naturally from them. But of course, so would any theism I held. Which means, once again, we'd be stuck talking about "What do you call it when you have more than just that amount of faith?"

The "Atheism is faith" thing, at least with weak atheism, is nothing more than a bait-and-switch on the meaning of 'faith'. I'm rather saddened to see Lucapsa fall for it. My atheism is based on a simple faith, the faith in my senses. But so is everything I do in life, and so is everything a theist does. Including read the Bible, and learn about God.

Yet there is a type of faith above the provisional "My senses do not lie, and the world around me is more or less real". There is the faith that is the acceptance of things without such input.

 

[seebs]

I think that forming an opinion either way on things not directly tied into empirical evidence is somewhat a leap of faith. Believing they exist is arguably a larger one... But at the same time, many of the experiences that lead me to believe in God *are* sensory, in that I have experiences which I choose to explain in that way. So... Forming an opinion either way would be an act of faith for me. I eventually settled on one opinion, which I admit freely is accepted partially on faith, not "proven" from my other axioms.

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by lucaspa
without evolution, atheists have no answer to the Argument from Design

The argument from design uses special pleading: the universe is complex and orderly, therefore it must have a creator, but God, who is even more complex and orderly than the universe, was not created.

 

[seebs]

It's not necessarily special pleading; the proposed nature of God addresses the concern.

 

[Neo]

If God can be thought of as uncreated, then so can the universe.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by seebs
It's not necessarily special pleading; the proposed nature of God addresses the concern.

It is special pleading: you address the issue of "everything must have a designer" by inventing a solution which, by your own definition, does not require a designer.

And how do we explain the obvious contadiction? "The proposed nature of God," as opposed to an ounce of empirical evidence.

Any way you slice it, IDT is just a clever rewording of "goddidit."

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Nathan Poe
It is special pleading: you address the issue of "everything must have a designer" by inventing a solution which, by your own definition, does not require a designer.

And how do we explain the obvious contadiction? "The proposed nature of God," as opposed to an ounce of empirical evidence.

Any way you slice it, IDT is just a clever rewording of "goddidit."

Oh, wait, you're right. Sorry! I got turned around, and I was arguing for the case where you already have God lying around from some previous mental exercise. So, I wasn't special-pleading, I was begging the question.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by seebs
Oh, wait, you're right. Sorry! I got turned around, and I was arguing for the case where you already have God lying around from some previous mental exercise. So, I wasn't special-pleading, I was begging the question.

Ah yes, begging the question. I'm surprised I missed that. The fallacies fly by pretty fast around here; it's hard to catch the right one sometimes.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Neo
The argument from design uses special pleading: the universe is complex and orderly, therefore it must have a creator, but God, who is even more complex and orderly than the universe, was not created.

Sorry, that's not special pleading. After all, a car has a "designer" -- humans -- but we don't have to say where humans came from, do we, in order to explain the car. The same applies to ID.&nbsp;

Any investigation works in layers. Solve the problem on one layer and 3 or 4 new questions pop up out of the answer. However, what is invalid is to use these new unanswered questions to try to invalidate the answer to the first problem.

Eventually all cause-and-effect chains come back to an uncaused First Cause. Deity is one candidate for First Cause.&nbsp; There are other candidates.

ID proposes that an "intelligent designer" manufactured biological organisms in their present form.&nbsp; That is a testable hypothesis.&nbsp; In fact, we already know that humans have manufactured some biological organisms.&nbsp; I use cells from a ROSA mouse. Gengineered with bacterial beta-galactosidase in every cell.&nbsp; Human gengineering explains the origin of bacterial beta-galactosidase in that mouse.&nbsp; ROSA mice really are partially the product of ID.

However, testing ID for all biological organisms shows that most organisms are not specially manufactured by an ID. Instead, the data indicates that they are products of natural selection as the "designer".&nbsp; However, remove natural selection as the designer and the only alternative available is ID.&nbsp; When there is only one hypothesis standing, it is perverse to withold (provisional) assent unless and until new data falsify the hypothesis. So, without&nbsp;evolution by natural selection, atheism would have no answer to the Argument from Design because it has no other answer to the designs in biological organisms.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Neo There is logical proof. It's logically impossible for a being to be both omniscient, and omnipotent at the same time because an omniscient being would be a slave to its own knowledge, it would have no freewill.&nbsp;

This isn't logical proof against the existence of a deity.&nbsp; It is only logical problems for a deity to be both omniscient and omnipotent.&nbsp; There are other logical problems with omnipotence.&nbsp; So now the question becomes: how powerful or knowledgable does an entity have to be in order to qualify as a deity?

It's also logically impossible for a being to be both omnipresent and omnibenevolent, because evil exists. If God were omnibenevolent and omnipresent, there would be no room for evil.

I don't see the logic in this one.&nbsp; God could still be omnipresent and "evil" happen.&nbsp; As soon as I read Kenneth Miller's arguments of deity creating a universe where life has meaning, the "problem of evil" disappeared.&nbsp; If our lives are to have meaning, then the consequences of our actions have to be real. Thus deity, if it exists, can't step in and fix everything or it destroys the meaning of our lives.&nbsp; And one of the clear theological messages in the Bible is that Yahweh is not a puppetmaster but that humans have control over their actions.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Humanista
Morat, very excellent post. I wish I could express my worldview as well as you do. Thanks for taking the time to lay it out in a way that SURELY any theist can understand. (Note guys, you don't have to agree with it!)

I'm glad you can't.&nbsp; Within two paragraphs Morat said:

"However, I don't claim it doesn't exist. I don't claim it can't exist. I merely don't assume it does.

I don't make a faith statement. I don't have a reason to suspect God exists. So I assume he doesn't&nbsp;"

In one he is not assuming a deity exists and then he assumes a deity does not exist.

Atheism is actually a very clear worldview. It only gets "confusing" when atheists try to deny that their worldview is a faith.&nbsp; When they do admit it, they are very clear. See the writings of Eugenie Scott.

Again, one more time, the claim is only that atheism is a faith. There is no claim on my part on whether atheism is an accurate or false worldview.&nbsp;

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Neo
The reliability of logic is axiomatic.

No, it's not. In fact, the "reliability" of logic alone is rejected by science.

"...what we learned in school about the scientific method can be reduced to two basic principles.
"1.&nbsp; All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they *really* are.&nbsp; How do we determine what they really are?&nbsp; Through direct experience of the universe itself.&nbsp; "

For instance, logic has what is called the "law of the excluded middle".&nbsp; That matter is both a wave and a particle at the same time refutes this "law" of logic.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Morat Do you even bother to read my posts? Or do you simply just assume what I mean, and don't bother to find out what I'm saying?

As I stated clear, I don't know God isn't necessary.

I do read your posts very carefully. You stated: "I can say quite certain that God is not necessary for natural processes to occur, because these processes are, by definition, processes that don't need God."

Are you changing your mind? You are allowed to do that.&nbsp; But please don't try to con me that you "stated clear" what you really stated as the opposite.

You keep dancing around the problem and you never give me the experiment to show that deity is not necessary for the processes discovered by science.&nbsp; You have ignored the problem and&nbsp;tried to define the problem out of existence, but you have never dealt with it.

I don't know God exists. However, since I don't have any reason to suspect he does, I assume he doesn't.

You keep saying this. And this shows that you have a faith.&nbsp; That "assumes" does not indicate knowledge, but belief.

Now, let's take a non-theological example.&nbsp; What about tachyons. Do you have any reason to think they exist?&nbsp; What reasons? So, do you assume they don't?

I do the same thing with every other concept in my life, whether it's deities or gas stations, or TV shows.

Fine. Then, like all the rest of us, you have a number of beliefs.&nbsp; Faith and belief are not restricted to belief in the existence or non-existence of a deity.&nbsp; Last month I walked into a voting booth and voted for candidates I believed would do a better job.&nbsp; Not only that, but the act of voting showed my belief that this was&nbsp;a good way to choose leaders.

If I don't have a reason to believe something exists, I assume they don't.

That's fine for belief. It's lousy science, but fine for belief.&nbsp;Look again at the tachyon example.&nbsp;If scientists did this, there would be no science done at all, because most entities in science are proposed without initial evidence.&nbsp; Of course, to understand your criteria, you have to define "have a reason".&nbsp; That phrase is very vague and would seem to allow you to reject anything you wanted in order to deny you have a reason.

It's not faith because, as I've stated several times, I'm quite aware it's an assumption, and one subject to change.

Why isn't an "assumption" faith? "5 a : an assuming that something is true"&nbsp; If faith is "believing where you cannot prove" then assuming is pretty much the same thing. You have changed the words but not the meaning.

According to your logic, my atheism became a faith statement the moment I heard about the concept of "God", despite the fact that both before and after I heard about "God" I didn't think he existed, for the exact same reasons: I had no reason to believe one existed.

Either I misstated or you misunderstood.&nbsp; Your atheism was always a faith statement.&nbsp; If for no other reason than you were believing that the material causes you observed were the only causes. But there are other reasons as well.&nbsp; You would not have had the word atheism without theism to compare it to.

I don't have a reason to believe in God, therefore I don't. If I had never heard of the God-concept, my worldview would be exactly the same, for exactly the same reason. Yet you claim one way is faith, and the other is not!

You definitely did misunderstand. Let me clarify again: your worldview is faith no matter whether you ever heard of theism or not.&nbsp;

Also, you are playing semantic games. What exactly is the difference betrween "don't believe in God" and "believe God does not exist"? Those are the same statements.&nbsp; Of course, you can't hide that your atheism is a belief in the second.


What a mature, thoughtful tact, Lucapsa. "You're lying". What an excellent response.

Is that what I said? Let's look at my statement again: "I simply call it atheism "Weak" atheism is a self-deception by atheists since you have already admitted you have to go to strong atheism to get rid of God in nature."

I addressed the position, not you directly.&nbsp; Weak atheism is a deception.&nbsp;Nice of you to try to turn this personal to distract from the arguments, but I didn't do that.&nbsp;


Really? Strong Atheism, huh? Then you'll be able to quote me claiming "God does not and cannot exist"?

&nbsp; Changing definitions again, I see. Yes, I can quote you saying "God doesn't exist". In fact, I did quote you as so saying. Of course, now you add the second condition "cannot exist" in order to say that you are not a strong atheist.&nbsp; However, I have never seen this in a discussion of atheism nor ever seen it in a defintion of atheism by atheists.&nbsp; Nor do I see why the condition is necessary. Whether an entity is possible or not has no bearing on whether you say it does not, in fact, exist. This looks like a way to try to duck out of a corner you have backed yourself into.

Because I have been quite clear, on several occasions, that I don't believe in God because I don't have a reason to, but that I freely acknowledge he could despite the lack of evidence. That I could, in fact, be utterly wrong.

Well, it's good to hear that you could possibly change your mind.&nbsp; That doesn't mean you don't have a faith, but that the faith may not be totally dogmatic. However, look at the phrase "despite the lack of evidence".&nbsp; Now you are back to contradicting yourself again.&nbsp; As I pointed out, theists have evidence.&nbsp; You simply don't accept the evidence as valid. But your and my refusal to admit the evidence as valid doesn't mean it doesn't exist.&nbsp; Several posters have stated that they have personal experience of deity. That's evidence.&nbsp; It's not intersubjective because your and my experience is not the same as theirs, but it is evidence.

I haven't degenerated into strong atheism,&nbsp;

I have demonstrated that&nbsp;weak atheism&nbsp;as you state it can't exist.&nbsp; You have never addressed those arguments. Instead, you keep repeating your position over and over.&nbsp; Yes, you refuse&nbsp;to admit you (and every other atheist) is a "strong" atheist.&nbsp; You obviously have a personal bias against the position because you use the emotionally charged adjective "degenerated" to describe it.&nbsp; However, your refusal to admit weak atheism is falsified is no more relevant than creationists refusal to admit that creationism is falsified.&nbsp;

I never said theists had to have objective evidence for God. None I know do.&nbsp;

I stated, quite simply, that I had no objective evidence for God.

Incorrect. Just above you stated&nbsp;despite the lack of evidence.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Notice the lack of "objective" before&nbsp;"evidence"?&nbsp;

Mine requires objective evidence for things, before I believe they exist.

Nice statement of logical positivism. And here you claimed you weren't a logical positivist.&nbsp;This is exactly what they said.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Now, look at your next statement:&nbsp;

Depending on how contrary the claim is to my personal experience, the more objective evidence I require.

What you mean here, of course, is intersubjective evidence, not just "objective".&nbsp; You want evidence that is available to everyone. If you had a griffon, that would convince you they exist, whether I had ever seen a griffon or not.&nbsp; Right?&nbsp; Objective in this case would mean that you could see the griffon, touch it, smell it, etc.&nbsp; What you want from me would be intersubjective evidence -- something of the griffon that you could see, smell, touch, etc.&nbsp;

BTW, you aren't pretending&nbsp;that this view of&nbsp;now entities are determined to be possible or exist is how science operates, are you?&nbsp;

[lucaspa]&nbsp; The author of that gospel thought that the evidence should be convincing. You disagree. So what we have is that theists present evidence. You reject it. Now, tell me how that is basically any different from what happens in the evolution vs creationism debate. Creationists claim transitional fossils don't exist (there is no evidence for macroevolution). We present series of transitional fossils. They reject them. Sound familiar? It's exactly what you do. So if the creationists have "faith", then why are you any different?

Really? So, you're saying that I could go see Jesus for myself, meet the man, watch him die and then rise from the dead? Because I can go do that for fossils. I've seen transitional fossil's myself. I'm afraid I've never seen Jesus.


No, I'm not saying that the evidence is intersubjective. It's history, after all, without evidence left behind for us to study today. What I am saying is that it is evidence.&nbsp; Now you are really claiming that the only evidence you will accept is intersubjective evidence.&nbsp; Of course, that contradicts when you said "my experience", because then you are accepting your personal experience whether it is intersubjective or not. Of course, many theists say that they have met the risen Jesus and that they have.&nbsp; So I guess you could see Jesus for yourself. That you and I haven't had such an experience has other alternative hypotheses to explain why we have not.

Of course, you have managed to miss the point that your arguments sound just like those of a creationist. And still do.&nbsp; You are still rejecting any evidence presented to you.&nbsp; You think the reasons are good. Well, creationists claim their reasons are good also.

[lucaspa] Morat, without evolution, atheists have no answer to the Argument from Design.
So? Without the ideal gas law, I'd have no explanation for the behavior of gasses.

Go back and look at what I wrote.&nbsp; Without evolution by natural selection, atheists have no answer to the Argument from Design.&nbsp; IOW,&nbsp;without natural selection there is no alternative hypothesis to explain the designs in biological organisms.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

So? Why do I care what Hume was able (or wasn't able) to do?

Because it is evidence supporting my claims and refuting yours. That's why you care.&nbsp; Hume wrote in the 1780s, before natural selection was known.&nbsp; Hume had no alternative hypothesis to intelligent design and therefore had to (provisionally) accept it as true.&nbsp; The problem, of course, was that since there was no possible "intelligence" other than deity, he also had to (provisionally) accept the existence of deity.&nbsp; But he refused to because of his faith that deity didn't exist.&nbsp; However, without evidence, the atheistic faith was very plain as faith.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

 

[lucaspa]

Morat: You seem to think that, without evolution, the argument from design is irrefutable. Given that even a simple look at how living things work show that, if they were designed, the designer was drunk, isn't exactly a compelling argument.

Science doesn't care what the attributes of the designer are.&nbsp; If the designer is sadistic, stupid, and suffering from Alzheimer's -- a conclusion from special creation -- then&nbsp;so be it.&nbsp; That's a theological problem, not a scientific one.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The problem is that the AfD for&nbsp;biological design&nbsp;is irrefutable without natural selection.&nbsp; We know of only two hypotheses to get design in biological organisms: manufacture by an intelligence and Darwinian selection. Without Darwinian selection there is only one hypothesis, all others, such as chance, being refuted. Even aliens won't work because the manufacturing process is beyond what can materially be done. When all but one hypothesis has been refuted, then that is the hypothesis accepted as (provisionally) true.&nbsp; Check any peer-reviewed scientific paper to confirm this.

The history of the human race has been the history of supernatural explanations falling to the natural. The history of the human race has been the history of the failure of god-of-the-gaps theology. However, that does not mean "supernatural explanations" fall to the natural. Again, show me that "natural" means "without deity" by experiment.

Falsify evolution tommorow. The Argument from Design still won't be compelling, because I have no way to reject the possibility than an unknown natural process might have created the appearance of design.

LOL!&nbsp; That's the situation with any theory.&nbsp; You don't know that an unknown natural process won't replace evolution tommorrow.&nbsp; But until then it is perverse to withold provisional consent.&nbsp; The same situation would apply to the Argument from Design.&nbsp; All you are demonstrating is the dogmatism of your faith.&nbsp; You claimed above that you could be wrong about the existence of a deity.&nbsp; Now you are claiming that you won't accept any evidence or argument for one; that you will hold out for a mythical but possible so-called "natural explanation" rather than give assent to a supernatural one.

I know natural proccesses exist, and I know that some can simulate design.

Only one process yields design: Darwinian selection.

I wouldn't find the Argument from Design compelling until it manages to show that no natural process could create such an appearance.

This has already been done.&nbsp; There is no material process other than Darwinian selection that can make design. BTW, it's not an "appearance" of design, but the real thing.&nbsp; What you are doing is adding a hidden prepositional phrase to "design" -- by an intelligent entity.&nbsp; I love this. You can't point to a faith statement in my words, so you claim I'm "decieving myself" about what I think. actually, I've pointed out several faith statements of yours.&nbsp; You simply ignore them.

Evolution gives me a nice explanation of the origins of life.

As several of us have pointed out repeatedly to creationists, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.&nbsp; Evolution explains the diversity of life.&nbsp; And because Darwinian evolution gives you that explanation for designs in biological organisms, you believe that atheism is not a faith. Which was my original claim.

It's ducking the question to you, because you believe God exists.

Again, show me where I said God exists.

It's ducking the issue because you can't set up the experiments to test the hypothesis. You have no way to refute Butler's statement. Trying to define away the problem is ducking the issue.&nbsp; It's not science nor even very good critical thinking. You have no way to tell if there is any process other than the material at work because you have no way of showing a control where you know there is only the material present. Until you do that, all you know is that you have one component of the answer.

But to me, dear Lucapsa, you're bypassing the core question to me.

Sure I have, because people like you keep insisting I do. Without you guys, I'd never even have come up with God, because I would have no reason to invent him.

Well, perhaps you would have no reason to hypothesize him (BTW, does that "invent" imply that God cannot exist?&nbsp; Seems so to me, which means you just met your own qualification for a strong atheist.)

However, that does not mean there wouldn't be a reason or reasons to hypothesize the existence of a deity. Once again, when you get back to two questions: Why does the universe exist at all? and Why does it have the order it does rather than some other order?, then a hypothesis you should come up with is: the universe is an artifact and, as such, an entity manufactured it and chose this order as opposed to some other order. As you said, you do know that people make artifacts. Therefore you know artifacts exist.&nbsp; It is a small step to hypothesize that the universe is an artifact. Now, is that hypothesis correct? That's a separate issue. Your claim is that there is no reason to hypothesize the existence of a deity. I just gave you a reason and refuted the claim.

Yet you claim that because I've been told about God, I'm making a faith statement, yet if I merely had never encountered the concept, I wouldn't be.

Third time in one post you've brought up that misunderstanding. Why? Wasn't once enough.&nbsp; Sorry, I said that you would be an atheist and that atheism would be a faith whether you had ever heard of theism or not.Remember, Morat, a deity objectively exists or does not exist independent of any of our beliefs.&nbsp; Even if you had never conceived of a deity and believed that the material causes were all that existed, that belief in the sufficiency of material causes would itself be a faith.&nbsp; Methodological materialism prevents you from falsifying the alternative hypotheses.&nbsp; That you personally fail to verbalize that alternative hypothesis doesn't negate its existence.&nbsp; After all, Hovind constantly fails to verbalize the alternative hypotheses for his evidence for a young earth, yet those alternatives exist.&nbsp; So yes, you have a faith.&nbsp;

Do you know what replaced logical positivism, since you brought it up?

Yep. Falsification.

If you do, then you'll know that the unicorn can be pink and invisible. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it wouldn't be pink if you could.

If it's invisible, it's not pink.&nbsp; That's falsification.&nbsp; Color comes from light reflected from an object. If the object is invisible, it isn't reflecting light and therefore does not have a color.&nbsp; What you have done is make an ad hoc hypothesis -- "if you could" see it-- to avoid falsification.

With the fall of logical positivism, we're stuck with the fact that there is no way to show the parrot is dead, that cannot be explained away.

What we can show is that the hypothesis: the parrot is alive -- is false.&nbsp;

I don't invent entities without need.

I've shown you a couple of "needs" to hypothesize deity. There are a couple of historical reasons that people did hypothesize deity separate from those.

But if you stick to this, and use it as a universal criteria for the rest of us, then you kill science. Science is all about hypothesizing entities without need.

Why on earth would I do that? What's wrong with saying, simply, "I don't know, but it will be fun to find out?"

Because, in order to find out, you have to make hypotheses to test them.&nbsp; Don't you know anything about how science is done?&nbsp;

Or even, simply, "I doubt I'll ever know"? Why on earth would I invent an entity and claim he did it? And even then, how would I know I was right?

Well, if you say "I'll never know" why there is a universe, then you will never gain any knowledge, will you. Apply that to every question and humans never learn anything about the universe at all.&nbsp; The reason you hypothesize an entity is so you can test it.&nbsp; Remember that ideal gas law? Boyle and others hypothesized/invented an entity (atoms) and claimed they were responsible for the behavior of gasses. They then tested the deductions from their hypothesis and looked for the observational consequences.

You know you are "right" when you consistently fail to falsify the hypothesis.&nbsp; Now, some hypotheses simply can't be tested.&nbsp; In most cases the technology doesn't exist. In a few cases, the hypothesis had observational consequences but none that exist today.&nbsp; In one case, the methods of science simply can't test the hypothesis.

Science and scientists are used to living with unanswered questions. We have to be or we would bias the results before they are known.&nbsp; Right now I am testing a treatment for arthritis. The animals have been treated but I won't euthanize them and get the results for 3 months yet.&nbsp; So I live with the unanswered question of whether the treatment is going to regenerate the damaged cartilage. I suspend judgement and don't assume anything until the results are in.

The question of whether a deity exists or does not exist is an unanswered question for science. You, however, make a leap of faith that deity doesn't exist. You call it an assumption but a rose by any other name ...

[lucaspa] Although when you contemplated the questions "why does the universe exist at all?" and "why does it have this order rather than some other order?" you should have hypothesized that an entity/deity created the universe that way.

That would be real faith. Making up something, claiming it was the answer, then moving on is faith.

Well then, good job, Morat. You have now "proved" that science is faith.&nbsp; Asking questions and making up hypotheses for possible answers is what science does.&nbsp; Of course, you distorted what I said with your "moving on" because I never said that. I was answering your claim that there was no reason to hypothesize deity. Instead of addressing the issue, you tried to duck. But in your duck you just made science a faith. Good job.

[lucaspa] And at that point you would have "rejected" the hypothesis because "I have no reason to think that a deity did create the universe." And your rejection would be a matter of faith, not a conclusion of science or data.

Do you really believe this tripe?

Instead of ad hominem, you should have tried to show why you wouldn't do this. You have said that you don't ask yourself questions like this.&nbsp; Also, you reject entities unless you have a reason.&nbsp; So, since there is no data -- except the existence of the universe, of course -- for the hypothesis, wouldn't you have rejected it?&nbsp; But would your rejection have been a conclusion of science or data? Or would it be faith that a deity does not exist?

 

[Morat]

I do read your posts very carefully. You stated: "I can say quite certain that God is not necessary for natural processes to occur, because these processes are, by definition, processes that don't need God."

Are you changing your mind? You are allowed to do that. But please don't try to con me that you "stated clear" what you really stated as the opposite.

You keep dancing around the problem and you never give me the experiment to show that deity is not necessary for the processes discovered by science. You have ignored the problem and tried to define the problem out of existence, but you have never dealt with it.

Let's see if we can spot the difference between the (highlighted above) and "I don't know God isn't necessary". What's the difference? Oh yes. One (my original sentence) discusses only natural processes which are defined as being "without the supernatural". The second, however, is discussing whether God is necessary for other things. Like, for instance, the way things actually work (as opposed to natural processes that seem to describe it), or how they came about.

To make a simple analogy: Just because lightning doesn't require Zeus, doesn't mean Zeus doesn't throw it.

However, I can quite honestly state that Zeus isn't necessary for lightning. Lightning can happen without him. Doesn't mean it does.

But that does mean that lightning isn't a good reason to think Zeus exists.

You keep saying this. And this shows that you have a faith. That "assumes" does not indicate knowledge, but belief.

Now, let's take a non-theological example. What about tachyons. Do you have any reason to think they exist? What reasons? So, do you assume they don't?

Why not neutrinos, which are an even better example? When they were first proposed, they were proposed without evidence. They were, in fact, exactly the sort of ad hoc patch that God is often used for. Why doesn't this work? Neutrinos/God did it.

Neutrinos could have been the answer. However, until evidence that they did (besides a mere need for them) was gathered, they were not used. It was assumed, in fact, that they didn't exist, except for those who assumed they did for the purposes of testing for them.

I treat God they same way those physicists treated neutrinos (although, with God, there isn't even the need...or even a basic fit to a prior model. At least they knew that other particles existed).

Like neutrino's, it's possible God exists. And while evidence for neutrinos was found, evidence for God is still lacking.

Fine. Then, like all the rest of us, you have a number of beliefs. Faith and belief are not restricted to belief in the existence or non-existence of a deity. Last month I walked into a voting booth and voted for candidates I believed would do a better job. Not only that, but the act of voting showed my belief that this was a good way to choose leaders.

So you admit to the old "faith" bait-and-switch? Popping between different definitions and meanings of the word faith whenever is convienent?

Perhaps you might like to define "faith" and "belief" before we continue.

That's fine for belief. It's lousy science, but fine for belief. Look again at the tachyon example. If scientists did this, there would be no science done at all, because most entities in science are proposed without initial evidence. Of course, to understand your criteria, you have to define "have a reason". That phrase is very vague and would seem to allow you to reject anything you wanted in order to deny you have a reason.

Good lord, Lucapsa. How do you manage to get anywhere in science? I was under the impression you actually had some experience in a lab.

Without evidence for tachyons, are they used to solve problems? Model events? No, with one exception: Events and problems designed, at least partially, to test for tachyons.

Without evidence, tachyons don't go in the Standard Model, do they? Neither did neutrinos, until actual evidence was put forth.

Assuming tachyons exist for the purpose of testing them is perfectly good science. Indeed, I do the same thing when I argue theology with Christians. To discuss theology, at least occasionally, I have to assume God exists in order to work out a point.

Have I just suddenly lost the ability to speak clearly, or are you so steeped in your ideology that you simply cannot read my actual words?

I hope the former, because at least I can clarify my words.

Why isn't an "assumption" faith? "5 a : an assuming that something is true" If faith is "believing where you cannot prove" then assuming is pretty much the same thing. You have changed the words but not the meaning.

The fifth definition? "Bait and switch", once more, Lucapsa! If this is your entire argument, that one meaning of faith is the same as another, then you should be off arguing evolution is a religion!

Either I misstated or you misunderstood. Your atheism was always a faith statement. If for no other reason than you were believing that the material causes you observed were the only causes. But there are other reasons as well. You would not have had the word atheism without theism to compare it to.

Wrong! Who said I believed material causes were the only causes? They are merely the only ones I know about.

For very obvious reasons, I can't go making up causes without evidence. I'd have no end of causes, wouldn't I?

You keep trying to find some point of faith (by the normal and most used definition), some point where I say "This is true!", and you're not going to find it, because I realize the folly of thinking that I ever have anything but the loosest handle on what is.

You definitely did misunderstand. Let me clarify again: your worldview is faith no matter whether you ever heard of theism or not.

Great. Are there any worldviews that aren't "faith"? If so, list some.

If not, then what's your point? Because if they're all faith, what word do you use to describe the difference between believing in things without, or often in spite of, evidence, and not doing that?

Also, you are playing semantic games. What exactly is the difference betrween "don't believe in God" and "believe God does not exist"? Those are the same statements. Of course, you can't hide that your atheism is a belief in the second.

No, they aren't. And your failure to grasp this is why you keep making ludicrous claims about what I "believe".

Is that what I said? Let's look at my statement again: "I simply call it atheism "Weak" atheism is a self-deception by atheists since you have already admitted you have to go to strong atheism to get rid of God in nature."

I addressed the position, not you directly. Weak atheism is a deception. Nice of you to try to turn this personal to distract from the arguments, but I didn't do that.

I am a weak atheist, Lucapsa. And you know this. You accused me of self-deception, based soley on your claims of how I think.

Isn't arrogance a sin? I can't think of anything more arrogant than declaring what someone else thinks...especially when they've tried many times to explain they do not.

For an otherwise bright person, Lucapsa, you've got a blind spot the size of an 18 wheeler on this topic.

Changing definitions again, I see. Yes, I can quote you saying "God doesn't exist". In fact, I did quote you as so saying. Of course, now you add the second condition "cannot exist" in order to say that you are not a strong atheist.

My apologies. I thought, since you've told me I'm decieving myself about my beliefs, that you would be familiar with the actual beliefs of a strong and a weak atheist.

God doesn't exist and cannot exist is the position of a strong atheist. It always has been. Strong atheists often use logical proofs (things like logical paradoxes and such) to prove that a given God concept is logically contradictory, and thus cannot exist.

In other words, a strong atheist claims there is no God. A weak atheist merely claims "I lack belief in God". This isn't a "new definition". Ask around. It's how atheists have always defined them.

If you can't tell the difference between those claims, then there's no point in talking to you. I can suggest several introductory web sites, if you'd like.

However, I have never seen this in a discussion of atheism nor ever seen it in a defintion of atheism by atheists.

Given that I've made the point to you a few times, IIRC, I find this hard to believe. It's quite standard usuage.

Nor do I see why the condition is necessary. Whether an entity is possible or not has no bearing on whether you say it does not, in fact, exist. This looks like a way to try to duck out of a corner you have backed yourself into.

Let me get this straight: You can't tell the difference between "X is physically impossible, therefore it cannot exist" and "I have no evidence that X exists, therefore I'm going to work on the notion that it doesn't until things change?"

You seriously can't tell the difference?

Well, it's good to hear that you could possibly change your mind. That doesn't mean you don't have a faith, but that the faith may not be totally dogmatic. However, look at the phrase "despite the lack of evidence". Now you are back to contradicting yourself again. As I pointed out, theists have evidence. You simply don't accept the evidence as valid. But your and my refusal to admit the evidence as valid doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Several posters have stated that they have personal experience of deity. That's evidence. It's not intersubjective because your and my experience is not the same as theirs, but it is evidence.

On that logic, disbelief in the claims of those Cold Fusion guys was "faith".

Although I'd love to see this evidence. I've been shown the Bible, which is excellent evidence that books exist, and some of them claim to be written by God. But not evidence the Bible is actually right. I've met people who claim to have spoken to God, which is excellent evidence that people exist who claim to have spoken to God. But not evidence God exists.

I've met people who claim to have spoken to Elvis too. Does this mean I have faith Elvis is dead? The same faith you have in God?

have demonstrated that weak atheism as you state it can't exist.

Actually, you haven't. That's the problem. And since you haven't, the rest of your posts are handwaving.

You have never addressed those arguments. Instead, you keep repeating your position over and over.

Until you actually grasp my position, my actual beliefs, I'm going to have to keep repeating myself.

Yes, you refuse to admit you (and every other atheist) is a "strong" atheist. You obviously have a personal bias against the position because you use the emotionally charged adjective "degenerated" to describe it.
[/quote]
When in Rome, Lucapsa. Pardon me for sinking into words you'd agree with when talking.

All you've done, Lucapsa, is argue with a strawman. For pages. Is it even possible you might be failing to understand my true beliefs?

You've accused me of self-deception about them, but what about you? Isn't it possible you've simple failed to understand?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Morat - maybe you could clear this up by stating formally that natural phenomenon do not require God in this sense:

We need no further explanations for natural events (e.g. lightning) given the existence of the universe, the laws of nature, and the proper meteorological conditions. Lucaspa may be saying that a God is necessary to arrive at this confluence of conditions, and takes your negation of God's necessity as applying to not just the events given those conditions, but to the conditions that allow the events themselves....

Round & Round we go.. I'm going to go finish reading your last post now.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Good post.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by What is a Darwin?
you believe in evolution like I believe in creation. You have faith that its true (otherwise you wouldn't be backing it up) and I have the same sort of faith for creationism.

and some of us accept a creator and acknowledge the science of evolution

 

[Morat]

However, your refusal to admit weak atheism is falsified is no more relevant than creationists refusal to admit that creationism is falsified.

Weak atheism is falsified? By what?

Incorrect. Just above you stated despite the lack of evidence. Notice the lack of "objective" before "evidence"?

Aww, I'm sorry. Did I forget a word? Here, I'll make it all better for you: "I lack belief in God, because I lack any evidence that measures up to the lowest bar I have"

Nice statement of logical positivism. And here you claimed you weren't a logical positivist. This is exactly what they said.

Now, look at your next statement:

Wrong! Unlike logical positivism, I don't claim they don't exist. I merely claim that, without objective evidence, I will treat those concepts as if they don't.

Can you tell the difference, or not?

What you mean here, of course, is intersubjective evidence, not just "objective". You want evidence that is available to everyone. If you had a griffon, that would convince you they exist, whether I had ever seen a griffon or not. Right? Objective in this case would mean that you could see the griffon, touch it, smell it, etc. What you want from me would be intersubjective evidence -- something of the griffon that you could see, smell, touch, etc.

Nope. I'd be happy with purely objective evidence. Say, I dunno, photos of Griffons, or a paper on the properties of Griffon feathers, or TV shows on Griffon breeding....

I'd even accept, for instance, a uniform and clear consensus on the properties and existance of Griffons. That is, if most of the people around me claimed Griffons existed, they all claimed Griffons had the exact same properties, there was agreement on the number of Griffons....

Not too much to ask. And I'll tell you this, if 95% of the world could agree on what God is, what properties he has, how many Gods are there, what they wanted, and all the rest, I'd be a lot closer to having the faith in God you do.

What I'm stuck with now, when it comes to God and evidence, is that every believer claims to have the same convincing evidence, and yet virtually all of them have to be wrong, because the vast majority of deities are mutually exclusive.

Since I don't have any compelling reason to think Christians are right, and Hindu, Muslisms, Buddhists, Jews, Pagans and the rest are wrong (and vice versa) I'm stuck in something of a quandry.

BTW, you aren't pretending that this view of now entities are determined to be possible or exist is how science operates, are you?

Science operates by not injecting entities or explanations without cause or evidence.

Continental drift languished for lack of a cause, and neutrinos for lack of evidence.

Both eventually found their mate (plate tectonics and some neat physics for neutrinos).

For deity, I have neither cause nor evidence.

No, I'm not saying that the evidence is intersubjective. It's history, after all, without evidence left behind for us to study today.

Are the Vedas history, too? Does that mean Vishnu exists?

What I am saying is that it is evidence. Now you are really claiming that the only evidence you will accept is intersubjective evidence. Of course, that contradicts when you said "my experience", because then you are accepting your personal experience whether it is intersubjective or not. Of course, many theists say that they have met the risen Jesus and that they have. So I guess you could see Jesus for yourself. That you and I haven't had such an experience has other alternative hypotheses to explain why we have not.

Where, dear Lucapsa, is the evidence that the Bible is totally true? Given that there are as many holy books as religion, and they all claim to be true, and they're pretty much mutually exclusive, how do I know yours is true?

How do I know any are true?

Why, in fact, do you assume any, much less yours, is true?

Of course, you have managed to miss the point that your arguments sound just like those of a creationist. And still do. You are still rejecting any evidence presented to you. You think the reasons are good. Well, creationists claim their reasons are good also.

Ah yes. It's impossible you're wrong. It's impossible you still have yet to get my own beliefs right. Instead, I'm merely rejecting the obvious. Shame on me.

Go back and look at what I wrote. Without evolution by natural selection, atheists have no answer to the Argument from Design. IOW, without natural selection there is no alternative hypothesis to explain the designs in biological organisms

So?

You seem to the think that the lack of an answer makes God the correct one. That's bollucks. You're dressing up God of the Gaps and trying to sell it to me.

"Well, if you can't explain X, then you can't refute the claim 'God did it'".

Why do I need to? All you're doing is playing Either/Or with no reason to believe that's the case.

Who says it's either God or evolution? Haven't your spanked enough Creationists for their claims that either YEC/atheistic evolution are the truth?

Why do you then make the same error in logic? So I wouldn't have an explanation for the way life worked.

Big fat whoop. Why on earth would I think God did it? Sure, maybe if we knew God existed and was a creative guy, it wouldn't be a bad hypothesis.

But here? Pull the other one! There are an infinite number of possible explanations (you never did answer: What replaced logical positivism, and why does this mean you can't prove the parrot is dead?). All but one of them is wrong, of course.

What horribly sloppy thinking! "I don't know why life looks the way it does, therefore God?". What about aliens? Some natural process? Time travel? If God, why yours? Why God instead of ghosts, or pixies, or spirits, or a pantheistic sort of thing?

Why do you insult me by claiming I would resort to such shoddy and illogical thinking. Without evolution, I would look at the Argument from Design and ask "Who designed God" and "How do you know God designed life? How do you rule out natural processes? Aliens? Pixies?"

Because it is evidence supporting my claims and refuting yours. That's why you care. Hume wrote in the 1780s, before natural selection was known. Hume had no alternative hypothesis to intelligent design and therefore had to (provisionally) accept it as true. The problem, of course, was that since there was no possible "intelligence" other than deity, he also had to (provisionally) accept the existence of deity. But he refused to because of his faith that deity didn't exist. However, without evidence, the atheistic faith was very plain as faith.

So? See above.

The problem is that the AfD for biological design is irrefutable without natural selection. We know of only two hypotheses to get design in biological organisms: manufacture by an intelligence and Darwinian selection. Without Darwinian selection there is only one hypothesis, all others, such as chance, being refuted. Even aliens won't work because the manufacturing process is beyond what can materially be done. When all but one hypothesis has been refuted, then that is the hypothesis accepted as (provisionally) true. Check any peer-reviewed scientific paper to confirm this.

Only if "irrefutable" means "flawed". Note the bolded section: How do you know these are the only two? How do you know that either, in fact, are correct? Talk about a common fallacy!

I'm really amused at your knowledge of alien technology. You must share your sources.

So your faith in God is merely a hypothesis? How weak a faith! I'd be happy to admit my view that God doesn't exist is merely a working hypothesis. But it's been my experience that most theists are a bit more certain.

Your problem, of course, is you're wallowing in a classic fallacy. You're assuming two choices, and two choices alone exist. You then take away one choice, and tell me "Ah-hah! If you reject the remaining choice, you cannot be doing it on reason, but faith!". Whereas, of course, my objection is that the claim that there are only two choices is unreasonable.

And, I might add, based on nothing. Have you shown that no other explanations are possible? I'd love to see that proof. I'm curious how you managed to rule out other natural processes, designers who aren't God, and supernatural forces that aren't God.

Oh, and all those other Gods and deities.

The history of the human race has been the history of supernatural explanations falling to the natural. The history of the human race has been the history of the failure of god-of-the-gaps theology. However, that does not mean "supernatural explanations" fall to the natural. Again, show me that "natural" means "without deity" by experiment.

Show me where any paper utilizes a supernatural explanation.

If you want to chant "and God did this" under your breath after every line, feel free. However, it doesn't change the fact that it works without adding that bit.

LOL! That's the situation with any theory. You don't know that an unknown natural process won't replace evolution tommorrow. But until then it is perverse to withold provisional consent. The same situation would apply to the Argument from Design. All you are demonstrating is the dogmatism of your faith. You claimed above that you could be wrong about the existence of a deity. Now you are claiming that you won't accept any evidence or argument for one; that you will hold out for a mythical but possible so-called "natural explanation" rather than give assent to a supernatural one.

Evolution isn't a negative proof, and the argument from design is! It's not the same thing at all.

The argument from design is only compelling if it is the only possible choice! It only works if it negates all other explanations. "It looks designed, therefore it was designed, therefore God did it."

The first part is debateble, for sure. The middle part (therefore it was designed) is the negative part. It's a hidden "If and Only If". You can only claim appearance of design = design if no other possible explanation exists, or can exist.

Else it's not a proof, but an opinion piece, and you've fallen into "Well, it's so darn complex God had to do it!". That's nothing but opinion unless you can show only God (and nothing else) could make something so complex.

Only one process yields design: Darwinian selection.

Only one known process. AfD only works if no process but design can yield those results.

This has already been done.

Really? I'd love to see that proof. Please reference it. You know, the one that proves only Natural Selection can yield the appearance of design.

Because, frankly, snowflakes look designed to me.

There is no material process other than Darwinian selection that can make design.

Personal opinion. Oh, don't get me wrong. You're probably right. But you've got no reason to think this, other than a lack of another process.

But absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. One of the reasons I remain a weak atheist, not a strong. Although, in all fairness, most strong atheists use other reasons than evidentiary ones.