HRG

Which mechanisms did the alleged creator use for his engineering task ? Which laws did he use for "putting the laws of nature into motion" ?

Unless you answer those questions, you don't have a model. What you have is a pseudo-explanation.

BTW, the idea that the laws of nature have to be put into motion is highly dubious.
Of someone setting laws of nature into motion ?

But you do have independent evidence that said creator exists, don't you ?

Regards,
HRG.

faded_Glory

Andrew_theist and madmax2976,

I would be pleased to moderate your debate in the Formal Debates and Discussion Forum on this site. You can post there on a special thread where no-one else can post. We can set up a comments thread in this Forum open to all.

If you are happy with this idea, please email me so I can set it up (my email address is in my profile).

fG

agapeo

[To that end MadMax has graciously consented to debating me on theism/naturalism as a rational basis for reality. I intend to spend some time preparing for that. I hope all who have contributed here have a chance to check in. Opening statements are scheduled for March 1st.]

Umm, I think perhaps its safe to say: "Andrew has left the building."

But I, like others, after he made this statement are exercising the muscles of assumptions. The only "reasonable" post after the above statement is this below, but heck, those of us that like to assume are also inflicted with the malady of failing to see the significance of having one mouth and two ears.

Vorkosigan

But I, like others, after he made this statement are exercising the muscles of assumptions. The only "reasonable" post after the above statement is this below, but heck

Really? What's unreasonable about anything in my post above, three or four posts ago? Perhaps you can answer some of the questions I posed, and respond to the points I made.

Michael

agapeo

[Really? What's unreasonable about anything in my post above, three or four posts ago? Perhaps you can answer some of the questions I posed, and respond to the points I made.]

It's called "context"?

[Andrew quote:
However once it can be shown that theism and atheism are competing belief systems a real dialog and discourse can occur.
To that end MadMax. . .]

But heck, as I say maybe he will take time out in preparing for the debate and respond to your points. I certainly have no intention on doing so, for it would be a waste of my time, since the distance between my views and your nose is to great of a chasm to bridge.

agapeo

On the other hand, let me "scratch" your intellectual "itch".

One of the many contentions theists have with atheists is that they make claims such as, “one has nothing to fear and everything to gain from honest pursuit of truth” and “make it clear to your adversary that you are not willing to waste your time and energy with him if he is not even willing to concede the fundamental principles of reason”, while at the same time, they refuse to look at opposing facts and will not allow reasoning that goes outside of their realm of beliefs. (Quotes are made by George H. Smith’s lecture entitled ‘Atheism: The case against God) Atheists are guilty of the same accusation they level against Christians. The abandonment of reason. The difference is they proudly condemn Christians of doing so while being unable to remove the “mote from their own eye”.

The question as posed by Andrew is “What will it take. . .” To which I responded that the evidence (hypothetical though it may be) is insufficient to convince me. Worth looking at, but still insufficient in and of itself. Thus, my answer to the question as I originally posted is there is nothing of the supernatural that would convince me of the validity of miracles since I first would have to accept the possibility of the supernatural. The mere unexplainable example of a “miracle” will not pass mustard. End of discussion, until such time that you can first convince me of the existence of a supernatural entity. But as an atheist, who claims non-belief, (which is my view) why should I even be compelled to look at the evidence in the first place? The only logical reason to do so is because I have doubt (which would make me agnostic) about my non-belief. Why, in other words, would someone who holds no beliefs in god[s] have a compulsion to look for reason to believe? The only “reason” that I see in engaging in this futile endeavor is for the sheer “fun” of it. It becomes a game of one-upmanship. You state your case, and I’ll state mine and we’ll let others decide who presented a more “reasonable” argument. But any reasonable conclusions will be influenced by bias. Admitting that I do indeed have such a pre-disposed bias is tantamount to saying “I really don’t care what you say ‘cause I’d rather stick to what I can know for a certainty, then admit that the uncertain is possible.” It’s called the “comfort zone” of man’s intellect. Anything outside that zone is not worth considering ‘cause then I would have to admit I may be wrong and why should I do that? And if the response is – Do you not wish to know the “truth” (and by that I refer to the existence and subsequent defining characteristics of god[s]) I respond “What is truth?” Truth is a subjective perception. What’s true for you is not and needs not be true for me. If I’m wrong what difference does it make? I live my life and die and in that death I have no consciousness of the mistake I made. And if I die and discover myself in Hell, what difference would that make, I’d might as well learn to get comfortable with it since I’m going to be there for a long time and nothing I do will change that.

So, it “boils” (in case I go to Hell) down to this simple conclusion. You choose to believe in god[s]. I choose not to. So where’s the “beef?”

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: agapeo ]</p>

Vorkosigan

[Andrew quote:
However once it can be shown that theism and atheism are competing belief systems a real dialog and discourse can occur.
To that end MadMax. . .]

But heck, as I say maybe he will take time out in preparing for the debate and respond to your points. I certainly have no intention on doing so, for it would be a waste of my time, since the distance between my views and your nose is to great of a chasm to bridge.

If you really believe that atheism is a belief system, I just have to ask again: what "belief system:" unites buddhists, wiccans, confucians, skeptics, pantheists, and so on?

Michael

Vorkosigan

The abandonment of reason. The difference is they proudly condemn Christians of doing so while being unable to remove the “mote from their own eye”.

Stop projecting. There was nothing in the last 8 pages of posts that would compel me to take a hypothetical argument as evidence of anything except the proponent's creativity.


But as an atheist, who claims non-belief, (which is my view) why should I even be compelled to look at the evidence in the first place? The only logical reason to do so is because I have doubt (which would make me agnostic) about my non-belief.

Do not confuse your own misunderstandings with some problem on my part. I can think of many other reasons.

I might be wrong.
I might learn some new argument or an interesting piece of information.
I enjoy interacting with other humans.
As an Infidel, I owe it to Andrew to listen.
I might meet interesting like-minded people while having an argument about religion.
Lurkers read these threads too. We have an audience.
My boss loves to spew apologetic nonsense, but if I let him talk, I'll get a raise for sure.
This hot little Christian number might be feeding me apologetic horseshit, but if I let her talk, I might be able to get her in bed tonite.
My father &lt;sigh&gt; always lecturing, lecturing....

And so on.

It becomes a game of one-upmanship.

That's only one part. I've learned tons arguing with theists, and more researching to engage them, and still more interacting with experts. Also, think of all the wonderful friends you could make here.

What a shame you have such an impoverished view of the discussions that go on here.

Michael

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

agapeo

[Do not confuse your own misunderstandings with some problem on my part. I can think of many other reasons.

I might be wrong.]

Then you're an agnostic, right?

[I might learn some new argument or an interesting piece of information.]

Likewise, for me but for what purpose?

[I enjoy interacting with other humans.]

I conceded to this one.

[As an Infidel, I owe it to Andrew to listen.]

This is noble of you, but why do you owe him anything?

[I might meet interesting like-minded people while having an argument about religion.]

Yeah, I experienced the same.

[Lurkers read these threads too. We have an audience.]

You have an obligation or responsibilty, therefore. I don't.

[My boss loves to spew apologetic nonsense, but if I let him talk, I'll get a raise for sure.]

Sounds like patronizing to me. Hope you get the raise. You worked hard to get it.

[This hot little Christian number might be feeding me apologetic horseshit, but if I let her talk, I might be able to get her in bed tonite.]

Try to be less serious and more humorous. The chicks really go that type.

[My father &lt;sigh&gt; always lecturing, lecturing....]

You should of listened to him more, who knows what direction you may have taken.

And so on.

[What a shame you have such an impoverished view of the discussions that go on here.]

Impoverished indeed! I find the discussions interesting. What I don't appreciate is condescension. I pointed out to you a discrimination that was existent in this discussion and rather than acknowledging it you chose to continue chastising me. Did you expect me to "tuck" my tail between my knees and stutter?

Mageth

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.

Um, study up on snowflakes. They are much more complex than a "simple set of repeating the same pattern over and over." See this link for a start:

<a href="http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/" target="_blank">Snow Crystals</a>

Here is a chart of the morphology of snow crystals from that site:



As I said, much, much more complex than simple repeating patterns.