RogerLeeCooke

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Andrew_theist:
<strong>

"...there would have to be

* Convincing evidence that abiogenesis can occur unaided."
</strong>

This, and your other arguments, are the standard theist retreat into the incomplete stage of science. Does it ever occur to you that inventing a "creator" is no different from saying "shazam"? It just a noise a person makes in order to stop thinking about the question. It doesn't answer anything. Go back and read Newton's reasons for believing in God. He thought that celestial mechanics and the "design" of the solar system were proof of a creator. That design apparently included all the meteorites that slam into the Earth and will one day wipe it out. But I suppose design is in the eye of the beholder. Lion claws were "designed" to rip antelopes open. Volcanoes were placed on earth to incinerate hapless animals and people every few years. All part of a wondrous plan, no doubt, that includes the eternal sadistic torture of little Aztec kids who just had the misfortune to die before the Jesuits arrived with their good news of salvation. Tough toenails, kids!

<strong>
* Convincing evidence that the present theory of evolution can cause the speciation we observe today.
</strong>

It has to be perfect, does it? You can't live with any uncertainty, to be resolved when we have more complete information? The god of the (stop)gaps.


<strong>
* Convincing evidence a universe can form or come into existence unaided.
</strong>

How many universes do you know about? On what basis do you conclude that they need help to arise? This argument has been naive since the time of John Stuart Mill, and I'm sure somebody on this thread will give you Mill's response.

<strong>
* That universes have a realistic chance of forming in a configuration that allows life to occur unaided.
</strong>

Oh hell, let's just quit using science to understand things. "It's a miracle!" That's enough science for anyone.

<strong>
* Convincing evidence that what would appear to be volitional thought apart from materialistic causes is really an illusion and I just think I have 'freewill'
</strong>

If knowing an Alzheimer's patient doesn't convince you, there is something wrong with your thought processes.

<strong>
* The discovery of some uncreated phenomena from which all other contingent events flow.
</strong>

You're safe with this one, since it is complete nonsense.

bluefugue

Agree 100%. As Dawkins said, it is "redescribing the problem," not answering it.

Kuglo

* Convincing evidence that abiogenesis can occur unaided.
There is no evidence that it was aided. The only explanation for which there is any evidence, is natural chemical interactions and cumulative selection systems.

* Convincing evidence that the present theory of evolution can cause the speciation we observe today.
The difference between any two species is caused by differences in their genes. Radiation, carcinogens, and other factors have been observed to alter genes. It's physically possible. Question answered.

* Convincing evidence a universe can form or come into existence unaided.
There are numerous problems with this question. Firstly, it assumes a universe can "come into existence". We often speak of the universe in three-dimensional terms, but in a strict sense, the universe encompasses space and time, and thus it makes no sense to ask when it came into existence. Talking about the universe as if were moving through time is like talking about a tunnel going through itself.
Further, the "universe" means everything that exists. If the universe _did_ have a "coming into existence", then nothing could have caused it. If there was something already there, then the universe already existed. If there is a god, then god is part of the universe. Universe means everything, period.
Even if the universe _did_ come into existence and this event was caused by something all-powerful, what evidence is there that this "all-powerful thing" had intelligence? The Hawaiin Islands had a powerful creator--volcanoes. But you don't see people claiming the volcanoes were intelligent and had a plan for those islands.

* That universes have a realistic chance of forming in a configuration that allows life to occur unaided.
I just used a random number generator to produce:
93436211542275467735024220006806161702056375031704
which is a 50-digit base 10 number, meaning that there were 10^50 different possible numbers I could have come up with. The odds that I would have arrived at this particular number are one in a hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion. That's so incredibly unlikely that I have determined a god must have been influencing my random number generator. Wow, some logic you've got there man.

* Convincing evidence that what would appear to be volitional thought apart from materialistic causes is really an illusion and I just think I have 'freewill'
Thought _is_ materialistic. It's the movement of chemical messengers across synapses. This has been understood for _decades_. What is "free will" supposed to even _mean_? If you commited an act that had no deterministic cause, then that is the same as saying it would be "random", in which case you wouldn't be controlling those actions anyway.

* The discovery of some uncreated phenomena from which all other contingent events flow.
This is extremely vague, and you have not explained how this has anything to do with a god, or what you're even talking about.

*This might seem like a formidible list.
It's not formidible; believe me.

*if I am to really be persuaded that no God or creator exists I should have at least a modicum of evidence that natural causes can fill in for what is attributed to God.
Natural causes are the only explanations for which there is any evidence. Gods are only imaginary at this point, and I doubt any evidence will be surfacing for them any time soon.

*Otherwise I am merely exchanging a belief in God for a belief in naturalism true?
You would be exchanging a superstitious dogmatic belief that within nature there is a powerful intelligent being that created the galaxies and space and (to many people) created life on Earth, for a lack of belief in this being, until warranted by evidence.
One view makes sense; the other is senseless.

Clay

DMB

I think, Andrew, that you fail to understand that naturalism is not a belief but an approach to finding out answers. As such, it has been magnificently successful, since it has resulted in modern science and hence in quite a lot of modern technology.

Ted Hoffman

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

Although, in my case, it's essentially both, in that I believe that the ubiquitous success of methodological naturalism has all but dispossessed the God-of-the-Gap, rendering theism unworthy of serious consideration. As Dr. Forrest says: "For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of 'death by a thousand cuts.'"

As for Andrew_Theist, the intent "to defend and promote Metaphysical Naturalism" is neither a mandate to 'convince' nor a guarantee of the utility or worth of any such effort.

atrahasis

This what i call departure from pleading.
If you like, its similar to watch maker analogy a very popular claim.
We have a maker but the the maker has no maker!!!


O.k mr. Andrew_theist do me favor, prove to me that a 'GOD' can occur unaided.

WJ

All!

God is a logically necessary Being!

Any questions?

abe smith

What Rimstalker & Filo said. If you want to assert (a) "God", Andrew, it's up to YOU to make the case. Until you do, there's nothing to refute/rebut. Abe

abe smith

To WJ, just-aloft ^^^^^: = Logic-schmogic.