The stumbling block for atheists.

[Loudmouth]

BTW
The only "poof"" in this matter is in relation to your abiogenesis fantasy.

Are you saying that life came about through completely natural processes? If not, what is your claim as to how life came about?

 

[Loudmouth]

Attribution of mind faculties, such as self programing via coding of information to mindless chemicals is not a rational choice.

Then don't make those attributions.

 

[Radrook]

What scientific experiments should scientists be using to test your ideas?

What experiments do you use to test to see whether your immediate conclusion that a computer is evidence of intelligent design do you employ? Of course you just immediately assume that it is and carry on and would consider my demand that you prove it nonsensical and even might tag me as feeble-minded for having brought it up.

 

[Radrook]

Word salad.



I apologise, you're quite right - we shouldn't get distracted from the fact that you have zero evidence to back up your claims.

Anyone can demand evidence where none is needed or tag everything that is provided as evidence as non-evidence. That is easy. That's why you folks do it.

 

[Radrook]

Then don't make those attributions.

I am simply following your reasoning to its logical conclusion.

 

[Radrook]

Are you saying that life came about through completely natural processes? If not, what is your claim as to how life came about?

I need not feel obligated to constantly repeat the same things over and over on demand simply because you choose to claim total incomprehension.

 

[Loudmouth]

What experiments do you use to test to see whether your immediate conclusion that a computer is evidence of intelligent design do you employ? Of course you just immediately assume that it is and carry on and would consider my demand that you prove it nonsensical and even might tag me as feeble-minded for having brought it up.

You didn't answer the question.

What scientific experiments should scientists be using to test your ideas?

 

[Loudmouth]

I am simply following your reasoning to its logical conclusion.

What reasoning would that be?

 

[Speedwell]

What experiments do you use to test to see whether your immediate conclusion that a computer is evidence of intelligent design do you employ? Of course you just immediately assume that it is and carry on and would consider my demand that you prove it nonsensical and even might tag me as feeble-minded for having brought it up.

You know, you would get a lot farther with your arguments if you would lay off making up stuff like that. We could easily prove that the computer was intelligently designed and we have tried to explain to you what criteria we would use--not a discussion which you are interested in, apparently.

 

[Loudmouth]

I need not feel obligated to constantly repeat the same things over and over on demand simply because you choose to claim total incomprehension.

Apparently, I need to repeat the same questions because you refuse to answer them.

Are you saying that life came about through completely natural processes? If not, what is your claim as to how life came about?

 

[KCfromNC]

What experiments do you use to test to see whether your immediate conclusion that a computer is evidence of intelligent design do you employ?

I go to work and see all the people around me designing and building computers. Then again, some days "intelligent" might be giving me and the co-workers a bit too much credit.

 

[bhsmte]

Are you saying that life came about through completely natural processes? If not, what is your claim as to how life came about?

Good luck.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'd much rather acknowledge the gap in our knowledge than decide that a higher being must have poofed life into existence. Why would I settle for a band-aid solution? I'm content with knowing that we haven't figured everything out yet.

Yeah; as Feynman said, "I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned".

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yeah; as Feynman said, "I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned".

One of my favorite quotes.

 

[Cearbhall]

.

 

[Cearbhall]

You didn't answer the question.

What scientific experiments should scientists be using to test your ideas?

None. You're supposed to just give up, shrug, and say "I guess God did it."

Yeah; as Feynman said, "I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned".

I've never heard that one before. I love it.

Here's the thing: I understand if someone else is desperate to have all the answers right now and forms their beliefs accordingly. Fine. God of the gaps, I get it. That's a personal preference. But mocking me for not doing the same? Ridiculous. I'm content. I don't know why they feel the need to project their anxieties onto people who don't feel the same way.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here's the thing: I understand if someone else is desperate to have all the answers right now and forms their beliefs accordingly. Fine. God of the gaps, I get it. That's a personal preference. But mocking me for not doing the same? Ridiculous. I'm content. I don't know why they feel the need to project their anxieties onto people who don't feel the same way.

Exactly. They act as if "I don't know" is something to fear. For a scientist, "I don't know" is one of the most exciting phrases one can mutter.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

One of my favorite quotes.

I was going to qualify it, because although it's attributed to him, no-one seems to know where or when he said it - but it's the kind of thing he'd say, and he's known to have expressed similar sentiments, so...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...For a scientist, "I don't know" is one of the most exciting phrases one can mutter.

It's the reason for science.

 

[quatona]

What experiments do you use to test to see whether your immediate conclusion that a computer is evidence of intelligent design do you employ?

You´ve got that backwards. I know that computers are designed by humans, I know how it´s done, I know why it´s done, I know who does it - and all this can be shown. I don´t have to conclude it, even less based on unclear criteria for "design".
So as soon as you can show me how and by whom universes are designed (in the way I can show you how and by whom computers are designed) , these epistemological processes will at least be comparable.
Until then...apples and aeroplanes.