Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Based on what do you propose that reality is constituted of matter and matter alone?
--AHJE
If no there is no evidence of anything other than matter/energy, there is no reason to either propose or accept that there is anything else.
The fact that we don't know an answer isn't a reason to invent an explanation for which there is no evidence.(1) WHY is there something rather than nothing?
What else is there?(2) You mean empirical evidence, evidence based on your 5 senses.
Beauty is an idea, a concept. It isn't a thing in and of itself. It is merely a label we apply to what we see.(3) Even the world of the senses show that there is more than just energy or matter. There is a little thing called ... BEAUTY. There is clear evidence that we cannot lie to ourselves about ... there is order and design in the universe.
Do we? We know that the universe in its current iteration began to exist about 13.7 billion years ago. But we don't know that it didn't exist before that in some form (or even that 'before' even means anything).(4) We know that all things visible/seen had a beginning.
Well, ... let us look at two possible explanations:The fact that we don't know an answer isn't a reason to invent an explanation for which there is no evidence.
How about forensic evidence, ... the testimony of others? Many people have not seen an eagle but they believe that eagles exist by the testimony of others.What else is there?
I disagree. There is objective beauty, ... order, proportion, design etc. which show that an Intelligent Being is responsible for the nature of things.Beauty is an idea, a concept. It isn't a thing in and of itself. It is merely a label we apply to what we see.
... "its current iteration" ? ? ? What does this mean? (Please explain.)Do we? We know that the universe in its current iteration began to exist about 13.7 billion years ago. But we don't know that it didn't exist before that in some form (or even that 'before' even means anything).
I can; how about matter has always existed in one form or another and evolved into what we have now.Well, ... let us look at two possible explanations:
Either there is a Supreme Being Who brought all things into existence,
OR all things just ... poof!! ... came to be by pure chance and random happenstance.
Can you think of any other alternative? (I can't).
Thats because the testimonial by others concerning eagles are consistent. The same cant be said about testimonial concerning your God; everybody disagrees on what he did, wants, or expects of us.How about forensic evidence, ... the testimony of others? Many people have not seen an eagle but they believe that eagles exist by the testimony of others.
How do you know it didnt always exist that way?[/font]I disagree. There is objective beauty, ... order, proportion, design etc. which show that an Intelligent Being is responsible for the nature of things.
Its current state. Before the Big Bang it was different.... "its current iteration" ? ? ? What does this mean? (Please explain.)
If that someone were familiar with human constructs they will know its origin. If not they would probably look at the details of a leaf and the details of a dollar bill and assume they came from the same source.[What is the likelihood that one will find a watch or clock in the desert and that someone will conclude that it was produced by chance (and not by an intelligent being)?
God bless you.
The problem starts when they will conclude that the desert was designed by an intelligent being.What is the likelihood that one will find a watch or clock in the desert and that someone will conclude that it was produced by chance (and not by an intelligent being)?
There´s nothing exceptional about the claim that you have seen a certain sort of bird.How about forensic evidence, ... the testimony of others? Many people have not seen an eagle but they believe that eagles exist by the testimony of others.
This point has been raised countless times. It is invariably ignored by those whose minds have been severely damaged by religion.The problem starts when they will conclude that the desert was designed by an intelligent being.
You are appealing to our ability to distinguish between stuff that´s intelligently designed and stuff that´s not - this doesn´t make a good argument for the idea that everything is intelligently designed (which eliminates the very distinction you are appealing to).
Well, ... let us look at two possible explanations:
Either there is a Supreme Being Who brought all things into existence,
OR all things just ... poof!! ... came to be by pure chance and random happenstance.
Can you think of any other alternative? (I can't).
Many people also claim to have been abducted by aliens. We tend not to believe them since extraordinary claims require quite a bit more evidence than mundane ones.How about forensic evidence, ... the testimony of others? Many people have not seen an eagle but they believe that eagles exist by the testimony of others.
Too bad we don't get the same evidence. Why has Jesus given up on us?St. Thomas, the Holy Apostle, could not accept forensic evidence (the testimony of his brother Apostles who had seen the Lord) ... he had to see the Lord and put his hands in his wounds so that by touching he would believe that the same Jesus Who had been crucified and buried ... had RISEN!
You'll need to show your work here.I disagree. There is objective beauty, ... order, proportion, design etc. which show that an Intelligent Being is responsible for the nature of things.
Big Crunch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia... "its current iteration" ? ? ? What does this mean? (Please explain.)
What's the likelihood that animals who excel at pattern matching will find apparent patterns even when none exist?What is the likelihood that one will find a watch or clock in the desert and that someone will conclude that it was produced by chance (and not by an intelligent being)?
The problem starts when they will conclude that the desert was designed by an intelligent being.
You are appealing to our ability to distinguish between stuff that´s intelligently designed and stuff that´s not - this doesn´t make a good argument for the idea that everything is intelligently designed (which eliminates the very distinction you are appealing to).
Are you saying it is? If so, for what purpose? Design implies purpose.But I am not saying that the desert is NOT intelligently designed.
You aren't very familiar with deserts if you think they are "formless wastelands". They are complex ecosystems.The desert seems like a formless wasteland ... and one is walking ... and then all of a sudden finds a mechanical watch on the sand!
You are posing a false dichotomy. There are other explanations than "Designed by a creator god" and "Random chance".Did it get there by random CHANCE? OR Did an intelligent being create it with intention?
Did you just make this scenario up, or did it actually happen?But I am not saying that the desert is NOT intelligently designed.
The desert seems like a formless wasteland ... and one is walking ... and then all of a sudden finds a mechanical watch on the sand!
Probably yes.Did it get there by random CHANCE?
Probably yes.Did an intelligent being create it with intention?
Are you saying it is? If so, for what purpose? Design implies purpose.
The planets and the stars and the sun do appear to the human eye to have a regular pattern of rising and setting ... just as the watch has a regular and consistent pattern as well ... aren't they similar in that respect?Moreover, you bring your knowledge to the problem of the watch. If God designed the desert, then the watch stands out because it's designer was human, and you are familiar with human designs, which are usually quite different from the "natural" world.
I believe I used the word "seems".You aren't very familiar with deserts if you think they are "formless wastelands". They are complex ecosystems.
If you think that I am posing a false dichotomy then you should have no problem introducing a third alternative. Where is it?You are posing a false dichotomy. There are other explanations than "Designed by a creator god" and "Random chance".
Oh ... you mean "thorough refutations" in quotation marks ... I see. One cannot refute reality my friend and the words which correspond to it.The "Argument from Design" was one of several advanced by Thomas Aquinas, and it has been as thoroughly refuted as all his other "proofs". To posit such a feeble argument, in this day, is to expose aphilosophical ignorance of vast dimensions, as wide as it is deep.
As I pointed out, your dichotomy doesn't even work as a false dichotomy, because one can accept both options you posted at the same time without any contradiction.If you think that I am posing a false dichotomy then you should have no problem introducing a third alternative. Where is it?
Actually, he just meant thorough refutations, without the quotation marks.Oh ... you mean "thorough refutations" in quotation marks ... I see. One cannot refute reality my friend and the words which correspond to it.
Not really when you consider the bigger question with respect to the universe (of which the mechanical watch is a figure).As I pointed out, your dichotomy doesn't even work as a false dichotomy, because one can accept both options you posted at the same time without any contradiction.
Yes, ... I know ... this was my way of saying that such refutations do not really exist.Actually, he just meant thorough refutations, without the quotation marks.
You can't seriously entertain that St. Thomas Aquinas, the "Angelic Doctor", does not know the philosophical rules of making a sound argument. Or can you?One can refute an argument even if its conclusion is consistent with reality if the argument itself is illogical. For example:
(1) Trees are red.
(2) Watches have been made by humans.
(3) Therefore, cats are not dogs.
The conclusion is true, but the argument to support it is wrong. Premise one is false and even if it wasn't, the argument would be one, big non sequitur.
I have yet to find a logical argument that God does not exist. BTW I used to be an agnostic before the grace of FAITH was given to me from above.Of course, there are other, logical arguments to support the conclusion that cats are not dogs, but I have yet to find a logical argument that supports the existence of God.
Can you explain to me why you think that it doesn't work?Whether God exists or not, though, the watchmaker-analogy doesn't work, nor does any analogy work as a solid argument.
If you want to talk about randomness, you first have to talk about probability. Considering we don't know the probability of a universe like ours to exist, talking about it is futile.Not really when you consider the bigger question with respect to the universe (of which the mechanical watch is a figure).
Did the universe come to be or appear by pure random chance?
OR
Was the universe created by an intelligent Being with Intention?
Too bad this isn't about refuting reality, it's about refuting your arguments.Yes, ... I know ... this was my way of saying that such refutations do not really exist.
Argument from authority. That's a formal fallacy, you know that?You can't seriously entertain that St. Thomas Aquinas, the "Angelic Doctor", does not know the philosophical rules of making a sound argument. Or can you?
Non-existence can't be proven, that's why non-existence is automatically assumed in the absence of evidence.I have yet to find a logical argument that God does not exist.
That's cool.BTW I used to be an agnostic before the grace of FAITH was given to me from above.
Because as long as you point out two legitimate similarities between two objects, you can use an analogy to arbitrarily establish other similarities, even if they are completely and provably absurd. I gave you examples for this, if I recall correctly.Can you explain to me why you think that it doesn't work?
Because order can arise spontaneously, and consistency is assumed by default, in every case, because without this assumption, the very process of thinking would be futile.Why is there order and consistency in the universe?
Regular patterns arise from consistency, and seasons have something to do with the tilt of the earth's rotational axis.Why are there regular patterns and seasons?
Because they have momentum.Why do other planets (not the Earth) move in space?
Our brain prefers certain patterns. We call them beautiful.Why is there beauty?
Because the existence of self-replicating molecules is, by their very nature, persistent.Why is there life?
Because intelligence is a beneficial trait, and beneficial traits usually persist and advance in a population.Why is there intelligent life?
Because every brain is different.Why are there human beings with personality?
Love is a beneficial trait for species that have to rely on other members of the group to survive.Why is there love in relationships between or among persons?
Because our brains didn't evolve to function in societies with more than 150 members.Why is there wickedness and lawlessness among humans?
Holiness and sanctity are properties that have been designed by humans. They are not cosmic constants.Why is there holiness and sanctity as heroic as that of Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta or Saint Francis of Assisi?
There aren't.Why are there a multitude of miracles which are beyond the scope of scientific explanation?
He didn't.And the greatest of all ... why did Jesus Christ RISE from the dead on the third day?
There are many reasons why people start to believe. One of them is that our brain has the tendency to get false-positive results when pattern-matching.And there is one more ... why did St. Thomas come to believe?
But do you agree that if the proposition is not true that "An Intelligent Being created the universe with Intention" then all that we see around us (the whole universe) came to be or appear by pure random chance? Even if you do not know the probability of such a thing do you see that this is the only alternative in general?If you want to talk about randomness, you first have to talk about probability. Considering we don't know the probability of a universe like ours to exist, talking about it is futile.
Show me where St. Thomas committed this fallacy in his 5 proofs of God's existence. Aristotle was not a Christian and he reasoned that there must be a Prime Mover. This would be the unmoved Mover.Too bad this isn't about refuting reality, it's about refuting your arguments.
Argument from authority. That's a formal fallacy, you know that?
Here you are committing the fallacy of appeal to ignorance.Non-existence can't be proven, that's why non-existence is automatically assumed in the absence of evidence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?