Mad Kally

Agapeo has provided evidence of his double digit IQ.

Andrew_theist

This doesn't seem to make sense on many fronts. If you were to argue that the "cause" of the universe is natural or designed, then you are debating the nature of the cause itself. (This assumes there was a cause, an assumption thats not guaranteed by any means). As a theist this would mean your topic would be whether "God" - the presumed cause of the universe - is a natural phenomenon or a designed phenomenon. Somehow I don't think this is what you meant.

You are right I phrased this poorly, I should know better than to argue with atheists without my morning cup of coffee .Your challenge is more what I had in mind.

Unfortunately this doesn't quite cover it either. It is possible this universe was created by a highly sophisticated race of aliens in another universe or perhaps from a different dimension. This would be a completely natural "design". Or it may be the TOE(Theory of Everything) may explain any "design" we observe.

No, this would cover it as far as I am concerned. If someone wishes to use the same evidence to advance the idea of advanced aliens, I would be delighted. Because at least we agree it happened as a result of design by intelligent causes. Then we can present our competing evidence and let the listeners decide for themselves what conclusion is more compelling. In either event it would rule out unguided mechanistic causes.

I wrote before, I have what I believe to be a far more equitable challenge for you. One that requires us both to present evidence and is not biased towards towards the other position and is less ambiguous. I am prepared to defend my view of naturalism against your view of theism - whatever kind that may be. My argument will be that my naturalism is a more reasonable conclusion than is your theism based on the evidence available to us.

That sounds reasonable. I can be ready on the 1st of March. I am open to any suggestions but here is a format I propose. Opening statements of 2000 words or less due 8PM. Rebuttal of 2000 or less due in 24 hours. Conclusion of 2000 words or less due Sunday evening. I’d like to host the debate here as well as on my own site. Do you have any suggestions for moderators? After the debate is over the forum can be open for all to comment. What do you think?

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Andrew_theist ]</p>

Mageth

Originally posted by Andrew_theist:

Stating the obvious; the universe cannot be the result of a "known" process since we do not know the process. Duh.

There is no reason why in the future we will not know the process (or at least have a very good idea, based on evidence.)

Quite simply, it does not logically follow that the creation of the universe MUST be the result of ID, simply because we don't know the process.

Actually, biogenesis is an examle of comlexity being produces by something other than intelligent beings, as we have no evidence whatsoever of any "intelligent being" capable of performing such, only superstitions. The "roadblock" is due largely to the difficulty of analyzing such a problem from a "distance" - it happened a long time ago, and due to its nature left little direct evidence.

I can also bring up the snowflake example. Snowflakes are undoubtedly complex, and there is ample evidence that they are created by "natural" processes which are pretty well understood and not by a designer.

Resorting to ID would be a retreat by science: we don't understand it, therefore goddidit. Respectable science abandoned goddidit, fortunately, a few hundred years ago.

Your logic leads to the circular argument: if ID is required to create complexity, who/what designed God, who by definition must be more complex than the universe he supposedly designed? And since a designer is required for complexity...

HRG

I smell quite a bit of anthropomorphism and reification.
Processes are not "created" (they don't exist as things; they run or don't run), and who said that the universe had to be created ?
What is the a priori specification ? Don't paint the target around the arrow once it has been shot
Not so. We know that genetic algorithms can generate specified complexity, e.g. of electronic circuits. In addition, the products of human design don't look like the alive organisms we observe in nature.

Regards,
HRG.

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: HRG ]</p>

jpbrooks

This is an important point.
Each side (theists / non theists) is requesting evidence from the other side to support that side's stance, when it seems apparent that the dispute is over how "compelling" that evidence is.
Each side ends up making positive claims that require evidence. (Atheists are not making a positive claim about the existence of God itself, but invariably make positive claims in their own explanations of phenomena, [e.g., abiogenesis].)
And each side is apparently able to come up with what it considers to be "evidence" to support its positive claims.
This seems to suggest that the actual disagreement is not about "the evidence", but rather, what counts as evidence.
But it seems clear that simply providing evidence for either side of this dispute is not the same thing as "proving" that side's position, and hence will not resolve the dispute.

(I have to run.)

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

Andrew_theist

The creation of the universe cannot be the result of any known physical or natural process since the only physical or natural processes we are aware of are ones that were created at the time of the creation of the universe.

Stating the obvious; the universe cannot be the result of a "known" process since we do not know the process. Duh.

It may seem obvious enough. However since you admit that no known natural process can account for it we have reason to infer a cause other than the physics we are familiar with.

There is no reason why in the future we will not know the process (or at least have a very good idea, based on evidence.

Beautiful response. You see throughout this thread the argument has been that atheism is caused by a lack of evidence. Yet here you admit to a complete lack of evidence for any natural cause yet… you believe sight unseen it was a natural cause anyway.

This underscores in a wonderful way the point I have been making all along. That atheism is not due to a lack of evidence. I am providing evidence that is summarily dismissed in favor of a competing belief system. One that is believed in even when no evidence in its favor is available!

Quite simply, it does not logically follow that the creation of the universe MUST be the result of ID, simply because we don't know the process.

So the correct answer is this could be an example of intelligent design we just don’t know and we have no evidence to the contrary. Fine I can live with that. But you would agree that is a far cry from saying there is no evidence for ID?

Actually, biogenesis is an examle of comlexity being produces by something other than intelligent beings, as we have no evidence whatsoever of any "intelligent being" capable of performing such, only superstitions. The "roadblock" is due largely to the difficulty of analyzing such a problem from a "distance" - it happened a long time ago, and due to its nature left little direct evidence.

To the contrary we have zero evidence that natural forces can now or ever have produced something of the specified complexity on the scale required for biogenesis. We have far more than mere evidence that intelligent humans can create specified complexity we have volumes of proof. The roadblock is attempting to get two elements that work against one another to do the job, chemical reactions and random forces. Again you’re atheism is not due to a lack of evidence; it is do to simple faith in naturalism in lieu of evidence.

I can also bring up the snowflake example. Snowflakes are undoubtedly complex, and there is ample evidence that they are created by "natural" processes which are pretty well understood and not by a designer.

Actually snowflakes would be a poor example of specified complexity. The information content of a snowflake is very low. It is beautiful but a simple set of repeating the same pattern over and over. It would be like trying to write a book using only a few letters, then repeating them over and over in a random pattern. It may create a pleasant looking design but little else.

Resorting to ID would be a retreat by science: we don't understand it, therefore goddidit. Respectable science abandoned goddidit, fortunately, a few hundred years ago.

So even if life was designed science must look for the answer elsewhere even if it is wrong? Is science the persuit of truth or just a rubber stamp for the dogma of naturalism? If something is designed it is not a retreat, but an advance for science to acknowledge it. And merely saying it is designed doesn’t mean someone has to conclude God did the designing. Also for many years it was assumed that the universe was knowable and the laws discernable precisely because it was believed they were designed. This lead to great advances not retreats.

Your logic leads to the circular argument: if ID is required to create complexity, who/what designed God, who by definition must be more complex than the universe he supposedly designed? And since a designer is required for complexity...

You’re right this would be a fatal argument to ID or naturalism since we could ask what created the mechanism that created the natural laws we now observe. Although I notice this fatal argument doesn’t prevent your faith in naturalism. What someone needs to propose is an uncreated first cause….

<a href="http://pub22.ezboard.com/bgwnn" target="_blank">Challenging Atheism</a>

Jack the Bodiless

So why not do that, and infer a genuinely unfamiliar agent, rather than the equivalent of a big kid with an ant farm? Why be anthropomorphic?
Whatever it was, it happened. So let's call it "natural". Why not? If psychic powers exist, they're "natural" too.
You're talking about metaphysical naturalism again. And you're saying that there's no evidence that mathematically simple natural laws operate? Ever heard of Newton?
Yes, it COULD be intelligent design. But there IS no evidence for this. None that has been presented yet, anyhow.
We also have "volumes of proof" that humans are themselves the result of billions of years of evolution. In which primeval ocean did God evolve?
The generation of more information isn't a problem. That's evolution, not abiogenesis. The first self-replicator would presumably have an information content much closer to the snowflake than to any modern organism.

Vorkosigan

a) an actual miracle by Jesus]

Possibility, since there exists "some" evidence of his existence.


[b) an actual miracle by some other deity, like Odin, Ngai or Shiva, intervening for the Eff of It.]

Where is your evidence to support the existence of the above?

Same as the evidence for any other religion! Holy books, claims of believers, etc.

[c) a random miracle caused by non-theistic supernatural intervention, like by Buddhist chants channeled through a Buddhist in the crowd]

Umm, possible. But then you accept the possibility of "a random miracle" and yet haven't explained how it's caused.

Funny, because that's the question I am asking YOU. How could you rule out any of the causes on my list?


[d) the outcome of the psychic power of the crowd, focused through the talisman of Jesus' name, and thus not even remotely theistic at all.]

Give me a break on this one. Sounds like gobbly-gook. Far from reasonable.

&lt;shrug&gt; You want me to believe that it is reasonable to think the second member of an incomprehensible Holy Trinity involving the Cannaanite Sky God Ya worked a miracle, but that it is not equally reasonable to think that psychic powers could have done the same thing.

[e) aliens intervening with superior technology, and thus not even a violation of naturalism.]

Gee, those aliens sure are sly ones. We get so much "fuzzy" images of a UFO and then assume they have some extremely valid intelligent reason for not revealing themselves in totality. Naw, I'll pass on this one too.

Yes, it's about as dumb as god not revealing itself in its totality.

So far you have not provided any serious argument to discount any of the possible explanations, just your personal arbitrary preferences. You don't know anything about miracles, so you can't say anything about how they came about. So all explanations are at this point equally possible. Evidence/methodologies, please.

Gee, again, you don't even know what my particular "superstition" is. For that matter you don't even know if I'm a theist, atheist, or an agnostic.

Don't care either. You are unable to give us compelling reasons to accept miracles, and so hvae descended to hacking on us for not having open minds.

I don't recall coming out of the "closet." What has happened is that everyone assumes I'm a theist because I appear to be defending Andrew. I guess my first post went way past anybody's observation.

I didn't assume you were a theist because you were defending Andrew. I assumed you were a theist because your discussion of the problem lacked depth.

Michael

madmax2976

<strong> This sounds a bit confining. I'm more interested in useful discussion where both parties have sufficient opportunity to clarify any misconceptions (and there will be some). With such limited exchange I'm not sure the issues can be discussed adequately.

In addition, my time table probably won't allow me to commit to such a stringent schedule.

I propose the following compromise:

- Each side presents a 2000 word opening statement at the time you specified.
- Each side presents a rebuttal of 2000 words or less which should be posted within 3 days of the opening statements.
- Two follow up rebuttals are allowed for each side after that, also allowing up to 3 days for each post.

Unfortunately I don't have any suggestions for moderators, but any you know who would care to fill the post would be fine with me.

An open forum for questions and thoughts after the debate sounds just fine with me as well.

Koyaanisqatsi

Opening statement: The evidence for nature exists all around us. This website will suffice as sufficient evidence for this observation.

What is the evidence for supernature?