Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Radrook, you seem to like science.
Have you realized the importance of a testable hypothesis yet?
Upvote
0
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.
As I explained before, that is a false analogy because you have no observational basis for a multiuniverse wherefore I have observational phenomena which indicates an ID. So the one that needs faith galore to entertain such a baseless concept as a multiuniverse is you. So let's just agree to disagree. OK?
Selective blindness isn't a rebuttal. It is simply a cunning evasion of the obvious.Really? Do tell!
Have you realized the importance of a justifiable inductive leap yet?Radrook, you seem to like science.
Have you realized the importance of a testable hypothesis yet?
Selective blindness isn't a rebuttal. It is simply a cunning evasion of the obvious.
Well, it´s presented as a conclusion. If it has been the presumption anyway, there isn´t much to discuss about the arguments that lead to the conclusion.That seems to be an entirely reasonable and logical presumption. And I don't think there is anything else as reasonable to presume.
Hey, I admit your preferred explanation (God) is viable.Selective blindness isn't a rebuttal. It is simply a cunning evasion of the obvious.
Have you realized the importance of a justifiable inductive leap yet?
It seems you have since you accept it in reference to Dark Energy and Dark Matter whose existence you consider beyond and dispute merely based on observation of their effect. Yes, the details of what they constitute is being sought. But their existence as forces due to cause and effect isn't open to any debate. So you are being inconsistent.
Hey, I admit your preferred explanation (God) is viable.
But you have not shown how the other explanation (natural conditions) isnt.
BOTH are viable. You are the one with selective blindess.
As was noted, it seems to be presented as conclusion because the conclusion is built into the presentation. I don't think human language can express it otherwise. No argument needs to be made. And no argument can be made against it, except - multiverse - an idea borrowed from a 1940's superhero comic book. If that's not stubborn desperation I don't know what is. Hey, at least my sacred metaphysical texts don't have ads for X-Ray goggles on the back page.Well, it´s presented as a conclusion. If it has been the presumption anyway, there isn´t much to discuss about the arguments that lead to the conclusion.
Ok. These threads, however, look to me as though someone tried to present an argument for it. Sorry for my misinterpretation.As was noted, it seems to be presented as conclusion because the conclusion is built into the presentation. I don't think human language can express it otherwise. No argument needs to be made.
Hey, I admit your preferred explanation (God) is viable.
But you have not shown how the other explanation (natural conditions) isnt.
BOTH are viable. You are the one with selective blindness.
Funny how some facts are controversial while others aren't.
The Earth is roughly 70% water, no problem.
The universe is fine tuned for life, problem.
It's only controversial to those who don't believe there's a God.
They don't like the implications that come with the fine tuning.
The only tactic left it to write it off as coincidence, even though common sense says otherwise
Another example of not liking the implications:
"Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature."
-Hubble The Observational Approach to Cosmology
I wonder if Hubble was horrified because he was an athesit or by some qualitative measurement of the redshift.
For example, the sun is roughly 400 times larger than the moon and roughly 400 times farther away. It may be significant but that fact alone could hardly it horrifying to anyone.
Okay, well suited. You're trying to tone down the language to make it more palatable?
Yes, like a man who sits down to a poker game and gets dealt royal flushes on a million hands in a row, you could say the game is well suited to him. A rational man would say the game is fixed.
I didn't go "back" to anything. You just substituted "suited" for "tuned". If tuned implies a Tuner, suited implies a Tailor. You can't get around it.
Anyone see anyone who actually said this? After all, it would be "irrational" to make up something like this as a dodge for actually address real objections real posters(*) in this thread have made to the problems of ID.There is also its irrational propensity to disqualify the concept of an ID simply because biological machines evident in nature are functioning automatically.
"The way of a fool seems right in his own eyes..."Well, thanks for conceding the viability of an ID.
As I am sure you agree, rules of logic don't suddenly become irrelevant simply because we are dealing with nature. That is where atheist reasoning is flawed and glaringly and conveniently inconsistent. There is also its irrational propensity to disqualify the concept of an ID simply because biological machines evident in nature are functioning automatically. It's similar to denying a designer of a jumbo jet cruising on automatic pilot simply because the inventor isn't seated at the cockpit. Obviously machines can be designed to function automatically by themselves for extended periods of time. In fact, there are now plans to make self-replicating and self repairing machines in order to set up automated factories on the lunar surface.
About conceding the atheistic view as viable, as much as I would enjoy agreeing with you I am sorry but logic prevents me from conceiving such a mindless cause as viable for the reasons I have previously explained. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the feedback.
BTW
Preferences can be either logically justifiable or logically unjustified. Based on that criteria we then evaluate their worth.
As I am sure you agree, rules of logic don't suddenly become irrelevant simply because we are dealing with nature
That is where atheist reasoning is flawed and glaringly and conveniently inconsistent.
There is also its irrational propensity to disqualify the concept of an ID simply because biological machines evident in nature are functioning automatically.
It's similar to denying a designer of a jumbo jet cruising on automatic pilot simply because the inventor isn't seated at the cockpit.
Obviously machines can be designed to function automatically by themselves for extended periods of time. In fact, there are now plans to make self-replicating and self repairing machines in order to set up automated factories on the lunar surface.
About conceding the atheistic view as viable
, as much as I would enjoy agreeing with you I am sorry but logic prevents me from conceiving such a mindless cause as viable
BTW
Preferences can be either logically justifiable or logically unjustified. Based on that criteria we then evaluate their worth.
Mainly, what I see that prevents you from an open eyed look at things is your pre-existing personal theological commitment, which you have decided to protect at all costs..... but logic prevents me ....
I don't need faith to believe in an ID.Mainly, what I see that prevents you from an open eyed look at things is your pre-existing personal theological commitment, which you have decided to protect at all costs.
Logic (and evidence) in no way rule out an intelligent creator being. But neither is it ruled in.
Stick with faith.
I don't need faith to believe in an ID.
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?