The stumbling block for atheists.

[TagliatelliMonster]

Also, tagging things as natural doesn't nullify the evidence of a planning mind.

What evidence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ultimately the senses MUST be employed in order to gain knowledge.

Which is why we build tools to do the measureing for us... to eliminate our dependence on our faulty senses as much as possible.

We can stick our finger in a substance and tell if it's "cold", "kinda cold", "somewhat warm", "hot" and "AAAAUUUUWWW!!! IT BURNSSSSS - hot".
And none of those will give us an accurate read on how hot the substance is.

But a hi-tech thermometer will tell us quite exactly with great precision.

ps: the light ranges that our eyes aren't able to detect, are not undetectable. Take infrared. We can't "see" it with our eyes. But it's quite detectable nonetheless.

Again, we make tools that are simply much better and much more accurate then whatever our senses can do.

I mean, seriously, our sense are (objectively seeing) pretty bad. Our brain is amazingly easy to trick.

To use Neil deGrasse Tyson's wording:
"Ever seen those books called 'Optical Illusions', which has all those great pictures that weird to look at? Well... those books shouldn't be called 'Optical Illusions'. A far more accurate title would be 'Brain Failures'.... Because that's exactly what they are... A few pictures cleverly put together and your brain just messes up utterly and completely."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again!

I am not arguing against the concept of an intelligent designer employing whatever method he chooses to organize a process leading to the creation of living things. What I do not accept is that the whole process created itself mindlessly and mindlessly led to the production of such a thing as the human brain among other such things.

Please don't ask me the same question again on another thread.

So... just for my interest...

Does that mean that you are fine also with some kind of deistic position where *some* deity, triggers the big bang in such a way that the universe has the laws that it has and then sits back to watch it all unfold?

I think I asked you this before, but don't remember you answering it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Presumably the same way that "dark energy" and "dark matter" miraculously appear in the sky yet cannot be detected directly by the senses, or in labs here on Earth?

Keyword: "directly".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As I said, I am not challenging theistic evolution nor arguing against it. I am merely proposing that the inference of intelligent design ion nature is a totally justifiable one. No, I am not attempting to convince theistic evolutionists to abandon their particular views. To me it's sufficient that their views include an intelligent designer.

Wow.... that's quite a statement you made there....

So basicly, you don't care at all about proposed mechanisms, which manifestable factors are in play and thus also, by extension, what the evidence actually is...

All you care about is that there is some kind of mention, even if only in the abstract sidelines, that a god (oeps, sorry, "designer") has *some* role, whatever it may be?

I think you just forfaited your entire ID crusade on this forum.
You have successfully completely undermined your own position, as far as I can tell.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again!

I am not arguing against the concept of an intelligent designer employing whatever method he chooses to organize a process leading to the creation of living things.

Yet, over the past few weeks, you made post after post after post, rehashing / repeating the same old cdesign proponentsist nonsense over and over again, about flagellums, "irreducible complexity", "specified complexity" and all that other mumbo-jumbo.

Which like literally, flies in the face of what you are now claiming here...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Funny how it's only miraculous when they say it's miraculous. The Big Bang which meets all the prerequisites for the miraculous isn't even called miraculous.

Big Bang theory makes testable predictions.

 

[Radrook]

Yes, you are. This is from an intelligent design article that you have cited on multiple occasions.

Consider the argument that Michael Behe makes in his book Darwin’s Black Box. There he proposes that design is detectable in many “molecular machines,” including the bacterial flagellum. Behe argues that this tiny motor needs all its parts to function—it is “irreducibly complex.” Such systems in our experience are a hallmark of designed systems, because they require the foresight that is the exclusive jurisdiction of intelligent agents. Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection and random variations, in contrast, requires a functional system at each transition along the way. Natural selection can select for present but not for future function. Notice that Behe’s argument rests not on ignorance, but on what we know about designed systems, the causal powers of intelligent agents, and on our growing knowledge of the cellular world and its many mechanisms. How does one test and discredit Behe’s argument? Describe a realistic, continuously functional Darwinian pathway from simple ancestor to present motor.
http://www.discovery.org/f/494
​

You have been arguing this entire time that life is intelligently design which, BY DEFINITION, means that it didn't evolve, theistically or atheistically.



Even the ID articles you cite say otherwise.

Even you argue against naturally occurring abiogenesis at every turn.



What is unacceptable is faith based claims backed by zero evidence.



Yes, I don't accept faith based beliefs and empty assertions as evidence. Why is that a problem?

1. Evidence can easily be tagged as non-evidence in order to avoid the distastefully obvious. Atheists are notorious in that way.

2. My view is the view that I clearly explain it is-not the view that you wish or imagine it to be.

3. I never proposed that my belief is based on mere faith. Tagging it that way doesn't MAGICALLY transform it as if it were your abiogenesis miracle.

4. No problem whatsoever. You are free to believe whatever you wish regardless of how unfeasible or ridiculous it might be. It's called freedom of choice.

 

[Loudmouth]

1. Evidence can easily be tagged as non-evidence in order to avoid the distastefully obvious. Atheists are notorious in that way.

And yet you can't find one example of us doing that.

2. My view is the view thsat I explain it is-not the view that you wish or imagine it to be.

Huh?

3. I never proposed that my belief is based on mere faith. Tagging it that way doesn't MAGICALLY transform it as if it were your abiogenesis miracle.

THEN WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE???????

4. No problem whatsoever. You are free to believe whatever you wish regardless of how unfeasible or ridiculous it might be. It's called freedom of choice.

Argument from incredulity.

Are you sure you took those logic classes?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yawwwwwn! You already deployed all those before. Please try something more innovative.

Before he can do that, you'll have to give him something else to respond to.

Like evidence to support your views. Just a suggestion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yawwwwwn! You already deployed all those before. Please try something more innovative.

Yet another post devoid of evidence.

 

[Radrook]

Yet another post devoid of evidence.

When you are provided with evidence you unceremoniously tag it as non-evidence. So let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Loudmouth]

When you are provided with evidence you unceremoniously tag it as non-evidence. So let's just agree to disagree.

Could you please point to the evidence in the quoted post?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When you are provided with evidence you unceremoniously tag it as non-evidence.

Can you point to a single post where this occured?

A link is fine.

 

[Dave RP]

In that case, concepts like Pantheism/Panentheism enjoy at least as much empirical laboratory support as any current cosmology theory.

I don't know what they are so cant comment.


Pretty much all cosmology theories have that same problem by the way.

I accept that we don't know many things, and that cosmologists can only theorise. Given that modern cosmology has only been around for hundreds of years, if we measure the invention of the telescope as the start of modern cosmology, and the universe is around 9 billion years old, we have doen pretty well to get as far as we have.

Philosophically we don't really seem that far apart to be honest. I fully realize that we haven't figured *everything* out. Newton's formulas for gravity were eventually shown to be flawed in some instances, and we can't even be sure our current mathematical models of gravity are the "right" ones and will never be replaced with another mathematical model. That doesn't mean that I do not experience gravity on a daily basis.

Likewise, I don't think anyone has to "figure out" God simply to experience God in their lives.

My partner is adamant she feels God in her life every day, she finds it comforting. I find it bizarre, but thankfully it is not a problem for us. She is of course "sinning" in the eyes of some in the Church and that'll end up with her in eternal damnation, in the opinion of some Christians.

And yet when Newton's formulas were replaced with Einstein's formulas, nobody claimed that 'gravity' actually changed or that theories about gravity couldn't be trusted.

Indeed, Einsteins theories described the working of the universe better than Newtons. A yet undiscovered theory may improve on Einsteins, that's how science works.

FYI, you might want to checkout the definition of "hell" as described by early Christian theologians like Origen. I'm personally a "universal salvation" kinda guy.

I started reading it and gave up, sorry! I have said to my girlfriend that a loving God (if he exists) would not consign 80%+ of the worlds population to eternal damnation just because they didn't worship him correctly. Her church teaches hell and eternal damnation for all unsaved, they put - literally - the fear of God into their congregation and I think it is a terrible thing to do. To scare the wits out of everyone with "YOU will go to eternal fire and HELL IF you don't obey OUR INTERPRETATION of the Gospels" is a shameful thing in my opinion.

I'd be happy to debate that point with you anytime you wish.

I always love a debate, but debating God is pointless, you either believe or you don't believe.

An Empirical Theory Of God
An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

 

[Michael]

I don't know what they are so cant comment.

Suffice to say that there is at *least* as much evidence to support either of those two definitions of the universe/God than there is to support contemporary "scientific" descriptions of the universe.

I accept that we don't know many things, and that cosmologists can only theorise. Given that modern cosmology has only been around for hundreds of years, if we measure the invention of the telescope as the start of modern cosmology, and the universe is around 9 billion years old, we have doen pretty well to get as far as we have.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. Any hypothesis that requires 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance doesn't seem like it's gotten very far from my perspective.

My partner is adamant she feels God in her life every day, she finds it comforting.

Well she's certainly not alone, and I find it comforting too.

I find it bizarre, but thankfully it is not a problem for us. She is of course "sinning" in the eyes of some in the Church and that'll end up with her in eternal damnation, in the opinion of some Christians.

I'm not really much of a fan of the whole "eternal damnation" concept. The notion that someone should approach God out of fear is simply repugnant from my perspective. I think that love and gratitude are much "better" paths to God.

Indeed, Einsteins theories described the working of the universe better than Newtons. A yet undiscovered theory may improve on Einsteins, that's how science works.

In that same sense, I believe that empirical Panentheism will eventually replace current cosmology theory too, but that may not happen in my personal lifetime. Old scientific ideas ultimately give way to new ones.

I started reading it and gave up, sorry! I have said to my girlfriend that a loving God (if he exists) would not consign 80%+ of the worlds population to eternal damnation just because they didn't worship him correctly. Her church teaches hell and eternal damnation for all unsaved, they put - literally - the fear of God into their congregation and I think it is a terrible thing to do. To scare the wits out of everyone with "YOU will go to eternal fire and HELL IF you don't obey OUR INTERPRETATION of the Gospels" is a shameful thing in my opinion.

That's all the more reason why you should have finished reading his description of hell. Origen was one of Christianity's early "Theologians". He studied Judaism in Palestine, and his afterlife beliefs are quite congruent with early Judaism. Two different words, "sheol" and "gehenna" were both translated to the term "hell" in the KJV of the Bible. The term sheol was simply a reference to 'grave' and it implied no particular afterlife connotations to the Jews in Christ's audience anymore than the term "grave" might imply to you personally. The term "Gehenna" was a term used by Jews to describe the afterlife, and the purpose of that afterlife. It was described as a *temporary* process of "soul cleansing' which every soul had to pass through before entering heaven. Everyone sins and everyone has to come to terms with that sin during the soul cleansing process. By Jewish tradition, it never last beyond 12 months. The term Gehenna in no way implied the concept of eternal torment to anyone in Christ's audience during his lifetime. In fact, the idea of eternal damnation is not even a "Jewish" concept at all, but rather it's a *pagan* belief system that was grafted onto "Christianity" by Augustine, *many centuries* later. Origen got it right, whereas Augustine simply replace the real meaning of the term with the pagan afterlife beliefs of Roman religion (hades) into the religion and thereby kludged it for all time.

Origen's description of the purpose of "gehenna" is one of *soul cleansing*, just as it's still taught in Judaism to this day.

I always love a debate, but debating God is pointless, you either believe or you don't believe.

Well, there are in fact logical and scientific reasons *why* I believe as I do, and I can defend those beliefs "scientifically" as well as you or anyone else can defend any other description of our universe.

 

[Michael]

Can you point to a single post where this occured?

A link is fine.

I'm not sure it's happened yet in this thread, but I'll bet I can demonstrate it for you.

Since the dawn of recorded civilization, humans have reported having a relationship with something greater than themselves which they associated with 'God'. Why isn't that a type of 'evidence' of God's "effect" on humans in your opinion?

The fact that a specific observation might have multiple potential explanations has never prevented such observations as counting as "evidence" of something.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not sure it's happened yet in this thread, but I'll bet I can demonstrate it for you.

Radrook is accusing atheists on this forum of responding to him in such a way when he posted evidence.

It seems only fair to ask him to support that claim.

Since the dawn of recorded civilization, humans have reported having a relationship with something greater than themselves which they associated with 'God'. Why isn't that a type of 'evidence' of God's "effect" on humans in your opinion?

Because we understand how prone the human mind is to hallucination, to being mistaken, to magical thinking, to false positives, to creating imaginary friends, to have a need for father figures (imaginary if need be), ...

Humans will believe (and invent) just about anything, given the correct circumstances and the right amount of ignorance.

You could make the exact same argument concerning alien abductees. I'm sure you don't believe that aliens are visiting the planet and abducting humans to perform weird sex experiments on them, right? ........right?

The fact that a specific observation might have multiple potential explanations has never prevented such observations as counting as "evidence" of something.

But as it stands, the human tendency to be religious / superstitious is pretty well understood. Even from an evolutionary standpoint.



Now, having said all that.... I don't see how this answers the question I was asking. Remember, the claim is that the proposed "evidence" (for "intelligent design") is simply discarded at face value. No reason, no rhyme but just labeled as "non-evidence".

I can write you an entire book about why the thousands of religions that have been invented by mankind is not evidence of gods existing.
And I'm sure psychologists and alike can write a few dozen books more about it. In fact, most likely such books already exist.

 

[Michael]

Radrook is accusing atheists on this forum of responding to him in such a way when he posted evidence.

It seems only fair to ask him to support that claim.

Agreed. You'll note that I did add a disclaimer there at the top of my response.

Because we understand how prone the human mind is to hallucination, to being mistaken, to magical thinking, to false positives, to creating imaginary friends, to have a need for father figures (imaginary if need be), ...

That very same argument would apply to *any* proposed *cause*, and to all hypothetical constructs in "science".

Humans will believe (and invent) just about anything, given the correct circumstances and the right amount of ignorance.

True, but it doesn't address the issue from my perspective. All propositions as to "cause" are prone to human error.

You could make the exact same argument concerning alien abductees. I'm sure you don't believe that aliens are visiting the planet and abducting humans to perform weird sex experiments on them, right? ........right?

Not really. I don't see a lot of ancient alien abduction reports found in human writings prior to the space age. Even then it's a *minuscule* percentage compared to the number of humans that report having a relationship with "God".

You're comparing apples to oranges IMO.

But as it stands, the human tendency to be religious / superstitious is pretty well understood. Even from an evolutionary standpoint.

So? Maybe there's a legitimate reason we 'feel' that way.

Now, having said all that.... I don't see how this answers the question I was asking. Remember, the claim is that the proposed "evidence" (for "intelligent design") is simply discarded at face value. No reason, no rhyme but just labeled as "non-evidence".

I'll let you two work that out. I can't recall anything in this thread that falls into that category.

I can write you an entire book about why the thousands of religions that have been invented by mankind is not evidence of gods existing.

Maybe a couple of arguments at a time?

And I'm sure psychologists and alike can write a few dozen books more about it. In fact, most likely such books already exist.

I'm not disputing the fact that humans are notorious for "making stuff up", but the same criticisms would apply regardless of what "cause" we might propose.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That very same argument would apply to *any* proposed *cause*, and to all hypothetical constructs in "science".

Nope.

For example, germs causing deseases is not accepted simply because people claim it.

True, but it doesn't address the issue from my perspective. All propositions as to "cause" are prone to human error.

Indeed they are. That's why we test our ideas.
How do you test god beliefs?

Not really

Yet a GREAT deal of people claim that that is exactly what happened to them. And unlike all those ancient folks you were refering to who made claims about divine visitations, these alien abductees are still alive. You can actually go and talk to them. You don't have to relly on texts which are copies of copies of translations of copies, after those stories were past on for generations true oral traditions.

I don't see a lot of ancient alien abduction reports found in human writings prior to the space age.

Likewise, I don't see a lot of new gods pop up after "the space age".
I'm sure you are aware that humans believed to see gods everywhere. In thunder, in lightning, in sunset, in moonlight, in sea storms,... In just about anything that they couldn't explain.

As Neil deGrass put it once: "gods seem like an ever-receeding pocket of scientific ignorance".

Even then it's a *minuscule* percentage compared to the number of humans that report having a relationship with "God".

Which god again?
As you probably know, there are a LOT of them. Most of which are mutually exclusive.

You're comparing apples to oranges IMO.

And you're pretending that they are the same thing (by lumping all gods / religions in one and the same basket). While, off course, ignoring all the psychology around it.

So? Maybe there's a legitimate reason we 'feel' that way.

There is. It's just not what you're claiming it to be.

Maybe a couple of arguments at a time?

I already gave you a few. There's not much more to say about that, really.
It's not exactly new information that humans falsely interpret things in nature and (mistakenly) attribute it to things "bigger then themselves", which can't even be shown to be real.

I'm not disputing the fact that humans are notorious for "making stuff up", but the same criticisms would apply regardless of what "cause" we might propose.

Sure.

Except off course, when the proposed causes can actually be verified and tested.

(cue cosmo rant in 3...2...1...)