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.
Thats because you have chosen to be blind to other plausible explanations, in order to preserve your theological commitment from the possibility of doubt.I don't need faith to believe in an ID.
Logic is pretty abstract.
It is perfectly possible to create a logical argument that is internally consistent and sound, but where the conclusion simply is incorrect.
Just like it is perfectly possible to create a mathematical internally consistent model of a universe that does not actually exist.
The question is... how does the logical argument reflect actual reality? How much is it grounded in empirical reality?
There is no such thing as "atheist reasoning", if you realise that atheism isn't a worldview. Theism is the worldview. Atheism is anything but that.
Again, no.... there is nothing irrational about rejecting undemonstrable propositions and assertions.
My rejection of ID, has nothing to do with my worldview and everything with the actual content of ID.
It is not. You can actually visit the jumbo jet factory. A jumbo jet is demonstrably an unnatural, manufactured machine.
And they would show all the hallmarks of manufacturing. As will the "off spring" thereof.
Again... there's no such thing as the "atheistic view".
Theism is the view. Atheism is only the lack of that specific view. It is not a specific view in itself.
Likewise, just like atheism is not an actual "view", neither does atheism say anything about causes for anything.
Maybe that's your problem.
Maybe you should be evaluating concepts based on the supporting independent evidence, instead of the consistency of the internal logic structures.
Theological commitment has nothing to do with concluding an ID in nature.Thats because you have chosen to be blind to other plausible explanations, in order to preserve your theological commitment from the possibility of doubt.
Whatever happened to the respect for faith among Christians? It seems like they deny it at every opportunity these days.
Ah, mockery in lieu of an argument... why am I not surprised?... 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.
Rules? What rules are these? Who laid down these "evaluative criteria" and on what authority?About determining ID, manufacture or lack of manufacture has absolutely NOTHING to do with the application of the rules of determining if something was designed or not. If it meets the criteria of having been designed then it was designed. Your sudden suspension of the evaluative criteria indicates bias and bias has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific method which demands strict adherence to objectivity.
What are the criteria for determining whether something has been designed?About determining ID, manufacture or lack of manufacture has absolutely NOTHING to do with the application of the rules of determining if something was designed or not. If it meets the criteria of having been designed then it was designed.
Ah, very true about creating arguments that are internally consistent but false. All we need is a premise minor premise and conclusion which harmonizes with the twain. Or to create a framework wherein everything that is discovered is cunningly fit into that framework to make it seem as if it proves the validity of the framework.
In fact, many evolutionist hoaxes have been attempted using that technique. Once the presuppositions are adopted the rest usually goes like a self-perpetuating well-oiled machine.
However, those are not the kinds of arguments that am using in support of an ID.
I never said that your rejection of an ID is based on any universally-accepted worldview among atheists.
I am very aware that certain atheists claim not the challenge God's existence and claim that that they simply don't know.
That's kind of funny. It seems to me that it is more for semantical purposes.I prefer to view them as agnostics for all practical purposes.
About determining ID, manufacture or lack of manufacture has absolutely NOTHING to do with the application of the rules of determining if something was designed or not.
If it meets the criteria of having been designed then it was designed
Your sudden suspension of the evaluative criteria indicates bias and bias has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific method which demands strict adherence to objectivity.
I don't know, but the point is that if you come accross 100 dice that are neatly ordered in rows of 3, you're more likely to assume intention than to assume it happened by random chance.
I don't need faith to believe in an ID.
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.
If we are only able to see the dice if they are all 3's, and there are nearly an infinite number of rolls, then it is nearly guaranteed that we would see all 3's through completely random processes.
Right, but there's no evidence that there were more than just one roll.
IOW, you're assuming more roles(infinite amount) without any evidence to support that assumption.
There isn't evidence that there is just a single roll.
I am pointing out that there are conditions where a random process would produce the same observation.
I am making no assumptions.
What you need is a experimental test to differentiate between the two.
The evidence is the single role that's right in front of you, which is analogous to saying that the evidence is this single universe that we exist in.
It's rational to assume intent in both cases and it's irrational to assume an infinite amount of rolls/universes because there's no evidence for such.
That's not a fact though because those conditions(multiverse) hasn't been shown to exist, you have to assume it exists, which means your assumption is not based on evidence.
You think you're not because you think you're stating fact when you say "I am pointing out that there are conditions where a random process would produce the same observation", but that is not a fact because the conditions(multiverse) haven't been shown to exist.
Logic differentiates well enough to make an informed assumption.
Why is it rational to assume intent? all we know is that it's possible for at least one universe to exist - there could be no others or an infinite number, we don't know.The evidence is the single role that's right in front of you, which is analogous to saying that the evidence is this single universe that we exist in. It's rational to assume intent in both cases and it's irrational to assume an infinite amount of rolls/universes because there's no evidence for such.
You mean like you have to assume a creator because it hasn't been shown to exist, which means the assumption is not based on evidence?That's not a fact though because those conditions(multiverse) hasn't been shown to exist, you have to assume it exists, which means your assumption is not based on evidence.
I think what you're failing to grasp is the concept of possibility, of hypotheticals. The multiverse is a possibility, just as an intelligent designer is a possibility, we have no evidence for one, so it's not rational to assume there is one, but hypothetically it's a possibility (albeit a vanishingly small possibility for an intelligent designer, in my opinion).You think you're not because you think you're stating fact when you say "I am pointing out that there are conditions where a random process would produce the same observation", but that is not a fact because the conditions(multiverse) haven't been shown to exist.
No. He is merely insisting on sticking to the actual observation, without having a priori beliefs cloud those observations.
The observation is that the nature of the universe is such that life is possible.
The observation does not include the "why" of how that is the case.
That again makes a bunch of assumptions about the universe that you can not demonstrate or know at this point in time.
For starters, it assumes that the universe COULD even be different in the first place.
Secondly, you don't have a million universes to compare with. You have access to just one.
Being dealt a SINGLE poker hand, won't tell you anything about the deck of cards.
Funny. It's that implication of the use of these loaded words, which is the assumed conclusion.
Yes, it's very hard to refute a metaphysical claim. Hence the popularity of the FSM and similar mockery among atheists. If you tell me you're the Queen of England in several parallel universes I really wouldn't know where to start to argue.Ah, mockery in lieu of an argument... why am I not surprised?
That's okay. I know how they are not alike. Unlike the science-y claim, the comic book actually had a bit of substance, a bit of definition in the concept.If you like, I can outline how your mockery is ill-founded - i.e. where four versions of the multiverse hypothesis really came from and why they are explicitly not like a 1940's superhero comic book.
I'll let you reread your grand statement while living in this one time through life.The universe is not fine tuned in any way.
I think this sentence is missing a few words...? or perhaps a few too much....?I'll let you reread your grand statement while living in this one time through life.
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?