Intelligent design taught in schools

[Violence]

Dre, isn't this an argument from ignorance?

 

[GwJ]

Time wouldn't exist without a universe. Since time is relative, I nothing's there, neither is time.

I'm not sure what this means in regards to unlikely things happening eventually. I have a hard time with this concept, can someone else explain it?

 

[ballin4life]

I don't see why it's necessarily true that time wouldn't exist without a universe. I'm of course speaking of "the universe" in the sense of "what was created after the Big Bang". If you use a different definition of "the universe", like "everything that exists", then the statement will have to be changed a little bit, because there would be no question of the universe being created (by definition it would be eternal).

 

[Mike]

Firstly, science is founded on metaphysical propositions, such as other minds existing, our perception of the external world correlating to reality, the world being millions/billions of years old, and not just being amde 5 seconds ago with the appearance of age. In fact, science only exists because of the metaphysical proposition that science can conclude truths.

Nonono. Science is not founded on metaphysical propositions. Science did branch off from metaphysics, but it is based on an entirely different approach. Science does not make propositions about the state of the universe. When a scientific idea is called fact, it's a shorthand for "beyond reasonable doubt but still subject to new evidence".

And of course science ignores metaphysics, science comes after metaphysics, just like how science ignores music theory, they're different disciplines.

Science actually relates with music theory. But the point is that metaphysics makes claims about the state of the universe in a very non-empirical way. It's cool to think about, but completely useless in every other way.

The jet and tornado example isn't about humans evolving from the earliest forms of life, it's the idea of complexity arising, and being preserved from unordered chaotic potency.

This basically translates to "I can't imagine how this came to be so it must be false."

Notice how you just dismiss it as "this stuff is rubbish" without explaining why, and without providing evidence for alternate theories. It's as if you just expect me to say "Well yeah Mike's right, this is all just urbbish, it's entirely logical for me to agree with him despite he fact he's provided me no reason why it's wrong, and hasn't provided me with an alternative with evidence".

The burden of proof is on you. You provide a ridiculous source and expect me to believe it? I told you why it was rubbish: because it makes claims without backing itself up. You might as well have plagiarized the speech and posted it in this thread and it would not make a difference in its credibility. And I did explain why. I said "Where did they get the probabilities to be able to accurately calculate all that in the first place?" Which YOU ignored completely!

Besides, the idea that the probability of a universe coming out of nothing, and forming complexity that is preserved in complete randomness, but just happens to have coherent laws that allow for life, and despite the source of all this being random, the laws remain completely consistent and untampered with, being enormously improbable is just common sense anyway.

This argument could be said to ANY reality that existed. The existence of ANY reality can seem infinitely improbable to the ignorant. Common sense is just about the worst reason to give credibility to a claim. For example: it's common sense that everything has a position and a velocity... until you study quantum mechanics.

 

[Dre89]

You guys are missing the point.

I'm not saying the Big Bang didn't occur, I'm saying it logically would require God, because of how improbable it is without Him.

But then you guys say that science hasn't found the answers, but isn't BB supposed to be scientific fact? Whenever a convincing argument for God is put forward, you always just play the argument from ignorance card "just because science doesn't have the answers now...." well then when is it logical to be a theist? It doesn't matter how much evidence we have, you'll always just play that card.

BB is supposed fact, yet it's stupidly improbable that it happened and sustained itself by chance. How isn't that a solid enough argument for theism?

Mike, how isn't a credible source? He lists the names of the scientists.

And of course every reality is improbable when you're saying that the universe came from chance.

 

[Mike]

You guys are missing the point.

I'm not saying the Big Bang didn't occur, I'm saying it logically would require God, because of how improbable it is without Him.

That statement is nonsense. There are so many thing wrong with it, but it's sufficient to simply point out that if there is a CHANCE of the big bang occurring, then it doesn't REQUIRE a god.

But then you guys say that science hasn't found the answers, but isn't BB supposed to be scientific fact? Whenever a convincing argument for God is put forward, you always just play the argument from ignorance card "just because science doesn't have the answers now...." well then when is it logical to be a theist? It doesn't matter how much evidence we have, you'll always just play that card.

There is no convincing argument for god because all of your so called evidence is evidence from ignorance, which is not evidence at all!

BB is supposed fact, yet it's stupidly improbable that it happened and sustained itself by chance. How isn't that a solid enough argument for theism?

Again, your claim that it's "stupidly improbable" is worthless unless your provide a credible source/evidence.

Mike, how isn't a credible source? He lists the names of the scientists.

Simply listing the names of the scientists does not make it a credible source!!

For example, the very first sentence in the speech does not support your claim. It states that if the universe was created even a little bit differently it wouldn't exist. And if one of the nucleotides in my DNA was different i would've been a miscarriage. Without involving probabilities, Hawking's claim does nothing to support yours. Which leads to the next paragraph.

The second statement (and third) was about how improbable it is to have a universe that is able to contain stars, life, or basically anything. One problem with this is that we aren't shown how the figures came up. It might as well have been made up. But assuming his statement is true, how do you know there aren't tons of universes that have been created that couldn't form stars, and that ours was just "one of the lucky ones"? This is not a far-fetched idea by the way. The understanding so far is that universes can be created simply through quantum fluctuations.

And of course every reality is improbable when you're saying that the universe came from chance.

And yet, given a universe created by chance, some reality MUST EXIST. The claim that "a reality exists, so god must've done it" is completely illogical!

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

You guys are missing the point.

I'm not saying the Big Bang didn't occur, I'm saying it logically would require God, because of how improbable it is without Him.

It does not "require" God. Improbability does not mean impossibility.

But then you guys say that science hasn't found the answers, but isn't BB supposed to be scientific fact? Whenever a convincing argument for God is put forward, you always just play the argument from ignorance card "just because science doesn't have the answers now...." well then when is it logical to be a theist? It doesn't matter how much evidence we have, you'll always just play that card.

What "evidence" are you talking about? There is no evidence supporting ID, only evidence against scientific theories. These two are not the same.

The BB is as much a "fact" as say DNA was 50 years ago. We knew DNA existed, but did not understand it.

BB is supposed fact, yet it's stupidly improbable that it happened and sustained itself by chance. How isn't that a solid enough argument for theism?

Evidence against the BB is not evidence for ID.

Mike, how isn't a credible source? He lists the names of the scientists.

And of course every reality is improbable when you're saying that the universe came from chance.

Again he argues for the existence of God by providing evidence against the Big Bang. Why is there no evidence FOR intelligent design?

Also he does not state how those numbers were reached. Of course the probability of THIS specific reality is very low compared to the infinite possibilities of how the universe COULD have formed.

 

[Dre89]

Yes, it is still physically conceivable that the BB could have happened by chance. But considering the improbability, it is in no way rational to accept that view over a designer, that in itself requires far more faith. Honestly, how do you rationally justify that?

And what do you mean there's no evidence for ID? We know the BB is fact, yet we know the probabiltiy of it happening by chance is insanely unlikely, how is it that not evidence? The only rational conclusion is that there was a designer.

If you're going to say you are rationally justified in beleiving in something of that improbability, then I'm rationally justified in believing in the FSM. Because honestly, the existence of a FSM is probably more probable than what you believe.


If proving that the probability of the BB occuring by chance and sustaining itself is one in trillions, is not sufficient evidence for the necessity of a designer, then what on Earth would be? If that isn't going to convince you, nothing would.

 

[Mike]

Dre, you didn't address any part of my post. If you're going to convince anyone of anything, you can't just make the same claims over and over again without countering our counterarguments.

 

[Dre89]

Sorry I didn't see it, I'll address it now.

That statement is nonsense. There are so many thing wrong with it, but it's sufficient to simply point out that if there is a CHANCE of the big bang occurring, then it doesn't REQUIRE a god.

There is no way that believing in something with a probability of one in trillions is rational at all. It's far more rational that a designer was necessary.

By your standards, it's totally rational for me to believe in the FSM, because that is probably more probable than what you beleive in.


Tell me, how is it rational to believe in something that has a probabiltiy of one in trillions? Are there other things you believe in that are of this imporbability?

There is no convincing argument for god because all of your so called evidence is evidence from ignorance, which is not evidence at all!

Ironically, this isn't an argument. Secondly, it's not an argument from ignorance. No matter how much evidence for theism there s, you'll just keep saying "just because science hasn't worked it out yet.." well when then does it become logical to accept theism? By your standards, never, it shows you're not being open-minded.

The thing is, science has supposedly worked it out. Science claims BB is scientific fact, yet the probabilty of BB occuring by chance is one in trillions.

Again, your claim that it's "stupidly improbable" is worthless unless your provide a credible source/evidence.

Which I did...I linked a video.

Simply listing the names of the scientists does not make it a credible source!!

Then anything you've been taught in science is also invalid.

For example, the very first sentence in the speech does not support your claim. It states that if the universe was created even a little bit differently it wouldn't exist. And if one of the nucleotides in my DNA was different i would've been a miscarriage. Without involving probabilities, Hawking's claim does nothing to support yours. Which leads to the next paragraph.

The second statement (and third) was about how improbable it is to have a universe that is able to contain stars, life, or basically anything. One problem with this is that we aren't shown how the figures came up. It might as well have been made up. But assuming his statement is true, how do you know there aren't tons of universes that have been created that couldn't form stars, and that ours was just "one of the lucky ones"? This is not a far-fetched idea by the way. The understanding so far is that universes can be created simply through quantum fluctuations.

If the argument about BB by chance having astronomical improbabilty isn't in that video, it'd be at the end of the video before it (the vid that I linked, is 2/11, so go to the end of 1/11).

And yet, given a universe created by chance, some reality MUST EXIST. The claim that "a reality exists, so god must've done it" is completely illogical!

No, the claim is that it is astronomically improbable that the reality that does exist was instantiated and is sustained by chance. Such a reality, which retains consistency, complexity, and coherence, suggests the necessity of a designer. Stop straw manning for your own convenience.

Honestly, by the same logic, I could just say that a painting just came about by chance, possibly by a earthquake in a paint store.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

You ever hear the saying about monkeys, typewriters, and all the works of Shakespeare?

yeah me neither.

in other news:
The Big Bang theory is not a FACT. It is simply the prevailing theory and the best model we have at the current time. I'm appalled that such an upstanding member such as yourself would believe that the Big Bang is 100% confirmed. There is a very high possibility of other models and theories arising in the future once more information and research is obtained.

You also seem to be under the misconception that everything in our universe is properly ordered and like a "painting" as you imply in your last analogy. How do you know this? You are simply looking through the perspective of an inhabitant who has never seen outside of it. Your view of this universe is akin to an American who has never been outside his state saying that the US is the perfect country.

Not so. Not so at all.

 

[Dre89]

Everyone here keeps saying BB is fact. Either that's the case, and it is ridiculously improbable, or a scientist saying something is fact means nothing at all, and we should just pretty much ignore whatever scientists say.

Lol did you seriously just compare me to a culturally ignorant American? It's been calculated by numerous scientists that the probabilty is one in trillions.

It's clear that there is compelxity in the universe. Atheists don't deny that. If our perception of complexity is wrong, then our perception of virtually anything in the universe is wrong, throwing all science out the window.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

It's not a fact. It's just the prevailing theory (which is significant because theories have to have a lot of evidence behind them). I hope you know how to read because I explicitly stated that.

Yes I did just compare you to one. Complexity is simply how you view it. The universe isn't "perfect," (like a painting) it just seems that way to we humans who have never seen anything else, just like the culturally ignorant American, as you say, who has never seen any other country. You seem to be saying that since this universe is so perfect , God MUST have created it. I say that you have no basis in claiming that this universe is any better or worse than any other universe which could have come into existence, making our universe more of a 3rd grader's drawing rather than something truly perfect (like the Mona Lisa, to continue the painting analogy you started).

But just because of that, it does not mean we can't study the universe and make conclusions based off what is known to be true, which is the basis of not only science but logical reasoning.

 

[Mike]

There is no way that believing in something with a probability of one in trillions is rational at all. It's far more rational that a designer was necessary.

There are still (at least) two counterarguments that apply. Only one of them is sufficient to discredit your claim, though I will list both.
1. You have still not given us a source explaining how these "scientists" found these probabilities. How do they know the probability distribution for the assignment of the magnetic constant? Electric constant? Particle masses? I'm sure the entire scientific community would love to hear about it.

2. Stating the probability of an event occurring means nothing if you don't also state the frequency of an attempt at the occurrence. For example, if the probability of creating a universe such as ours was one in a trillion but the creation of a universe happened a trillion times a second then it's not such an unbelievable thing to believe in.

Ironically, this isn't an argument. Secondly, it's not an argument from ignorance. No matter how much evidence for theism there s, you'll just keep saying "just because science hasn't worked it out yet.." well when then does it become logical to accept theism? By your standards, never, it shows you're not being open-minded.

It becomes logical to accept theism once there is evidence supporting its correctness. Until you can refute the two points above, theism holds no credibility. Even assuming the universe must have been created by "something else", it need not be an intelligent god.

Then anything you've been taught in science is also invalid.

Debaters must provide sources for their claims to show they have done the research and know what they're talking about. You have not done that in this case. Don't strawman.

If the argument about BB by chance having astronomical improbabilty isn't in that video, it'd be at the end of the video before it (the vid that I linked, is 2/11, so go to the end of 1/11).

It was in both videos, but he never provided arguments or information supporting his claim that the probabilities were correct. He just stated them as if they were fact. And if you go back to the very top of my post, you will see my arguments against them.

No, the claim is that it is astronomically improbable that the reality that does exist was instantiated and is sustained by chance. Such a reality, which retains consistency, complexity, and coherence, suggests the necessity of a designer. Stop straw manning for your own convenience.

It is not a strawman. Your argument, can apply to EVERY POSSIBLE REALITY. But assuming the probability of ANY reality being created at all given enough time is 100%, then ANY reality that is created seems "unbelievable improbable", but it must happen, rendering the occurrence PERFECTLY believable! Do you understand what I'm getting at?

Honestly, by the same logic, I could just say that a painting just came about by chance, possibly by a earthquake in a paint store.

This doesn't relate.

 

[Violence]

I'm sorry... I'm having trouble following you here.

Can someone please explain to me what the odds of the Big Bang occurring are, and how that conclusion was reached?

How can the odds of an event like that even be calculated?

What are the odds of an intelligent being creating the universe?

 

[1048576]

You said that the "involves a creator" is a possibility.

Does lying through your teeth actually bother you? I know I can't just flat out make crap up like that. I have to start with the truth and kind of distort it when I feel like lying.

It must be a gift, honed through practice no doubt.

Anyway this was the post I was going to make when you vomited your load onto my computer screen, but I decided to step away from this thread for a while. I got back to it and I still feel like making this post.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

From what the video posted said, I gather that they multiplied the probabilities that certain laws of physics would come out they way they did in an event such as the big bang

how they formulated those individual probabilities is beyond me.

 

[rvkevin]

I'm sorry... I'm having trouble following you here.

Can someone please explain to me what the odds of the Big Bang occurring are, and how that conclusion was reached?

How can the odds of an event like that even be calculated?

There are two ways to estimate the probability of events. One is simply by historical analysis. This would entail watching different universes form and find the proportion of universes similar to ours. Obviously, this isn't the method being used. The other method is only applicable if you accurately understand the mechanisms involved in the system. This would entail an accurate understanding of the mechanisms that determine how the laws of the universe is formed. This is why I said above that whatever calculation being used would be based on an unfounded assumption because, as far as I know, this level of understanding has yet to be reached by scientists.

For example, we can estimate the probability of rolling a die by two methods. First, we just go out and roll the dice a bunch of times until we get a sufficiently large sample and that would be the probability space. Notice, this does not necessarily have to coincide with the theoretical values. If we get an estimate that is statistically different than in theory, then one of our assumptions is likely to be incorrect (the dice is weighted, the thrower is manipulating the throw, etc.). The other way is based on certain theoretical assumptions (the dice is fair). The accuracy of the analysis rests on how accurately these assumptions compare to reality.

The question regarding the laws of the universe should be, what are these assumptions and do we have good reason to accept them. One of the assumptions is that we live in a single universe. There are several models that are consistent with the data that involve multiple universes, this appears to be a defeater for this assumption even without the process of experimental data. Other assumptions include that these laws are independent, are able to be formed within a certain range of values, are uniformly distributed in this range, etc. Also, given that we know how counter-intuitive cosmology is, contrary to what some theologians/philosophers would like you to believe, our intuitions are not reliable when it comes to assessing these assumptions. This is likely what Hawking meant when he said that "Philosophy is dead (this sentiment has also been expressed by other physicists);" that our conclusions about cosmology, in the light of special relativity and quantum mechanics, should be decided by experimental data and not human bias. For these reasons, I feel like proponents of this argument are throwing caution to the wind.

If you need clarification on anything, feel free to ask.

 

[Photos]

Why does it matter if the world at large accepts it? Those people haven't actually studied it and don't have enough information to come up with a reasonable conclusion.

sorry it took me so long to get back to this. the reason i said that is because we see the same thing for evolution. someone had made the point that evolution was accepted by certain types of people, and the exact same can be said for ID. sorry i'm way behind in the argument.

I'm sorry... I'm having trouble following you here.

Can someone please explain to me what the odds of the Big Bang occurring are, and how that conclusion was reached?

How can the odds of an event like that even be calculated?

it's based on the expansion of the universe and the ambient energy of space.
in other words, everything is going away from us at the same rate plus/minus their current revolving speeds. because this is happening far in the stars past, they've determined that the universe has always been expanding, therefore at one point in time, space and matter were also one point, a universal singularity which allowed matter to be when there was not any space for it to "be" in. that is one way how they theorized that the universe began with what was improperly dubbed "The Big Bang".

 

[ballin4life]

sorry it took me so long to get back to this. the reason i said that is because we see the same thing for evolution. someone had made the point that evolution was accepted by certain types of people, and the exact same can be said for ID. sorry i'm way behind in the argument.

I'm confused. What is the purpose of saying "well some people believe X". Some people believe the world is flat too, but how is that relevant? Now, if those people had convincing evidence, then we can talk. But the mere fact that some people believe a certain proposition doesn't mean anything.

Also, if the probability of the Big Bang happening is trillions to one, then what happens in all the cases where the Big Bang doesn't happen?

 

[Mike]

it's based on the expansion of the universe and the ambient energy of space.
in other words, everything is going away from us at the same rate plus/minus their current revolving speeds. because this is happening far in the stars past, they've determined that the universe has always been expanding, therefore at one point in time, space and matter were also one point, a universal singularity which allowed matter to be when there was not any space for it to "be" in. that is one way how they theorized that the universe began with what was improperly dubbed "The Big Bang".

This does not answer the question at all. This is an attempt at answering the question "where did the idea of the big bang come from", not "how did they calculate the probabilities in the video Dre posted".

 

[Dre89]

I just have a few questions-

Do you guys believe the BB originared from nothing?

Do you believe the first cause was a single unified entity, or do you believe certain principles such as space and time, matter etc. co existed simultaneously without a prior cause?

If the source of existence in the universe is totally random, why is that of the trillions of hypothetical combinations of laws, we happen to have a totally coherent set that fosters life, and why are these laws never subject to change? Why is this not random? If the source of existence is itself random, how do you explain the laws never changing?

 

[Mike]

Dre! The fact that you asked us those questions mean you did not read my post at all!! Please reply to my post so you can stop repeating the same things over and over again...

And really, there is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know". Just because we don't know how the universe started doesn't mean it had to be an intelligent designer! That is not logically consistent. And it's not that physicists don't have ideas of how the universe as we know it was created, but I'm not going to repeat them to you as fact because I don't know anything about it past the very basic level. And I would appreciate it if you did the same.

 

[_Keno_]

If the source of existence in the universe is totally random, why is that of the trillions of hypothetical combinations of laws, we happen to have a totally coherent set that fosters life, and why are these laws never subject to change? Why is this not random? If the source of existence is itself random, how do you explain the laws never changing?

Can you explain why you think that the laws of physics would be subject to change? It seems to me that once something is set, it would need to be caused to change, not have the natural state of constantly changing.

 

[Dre89]

Because causality itself would be random. If a random source of existence causes something that remains consistent, yet other factors are random, then that source of existence isn't really random.

Mike- It doesn't matter what your explanation is. There are metaphysical issues regardless of whether you think something come from nothing, or if matter and time has existed infinitely. So I don't need a scientific explanation, because I feel having a naturalistic first cause is metaphysically problematic.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

I don't see why you assume everything is random?

Randomness does not necessarily follow from the lack of a designer.

 

[Mike]

Mike- It doesn't matter what your explanation is. There are metaphysical issues regardless of whether you think something come from nothing, or if matter and time has existed infinitely. So I don't need a scientific explanation, because I feel having a naturalistic first cause is metaphysically problematic.

Your belief stems from an extreme ignorance in science. If you aren't willing to debate maturely by checking your sources or countering my arguments, then i'm done replying to you here.

 

[_Keno_]

Because causality itself would be random. If a random source of existence causes something that remains consistent, yet other factors are random, then that source of existence isn't really random.

Yes, causality is random, but I think you are misunderstanding. I'm asking that if the laws of physics are initially random, why do you think it is necessary that they are always changing?

If I roll a die that has every set of "possible laws of physics" on the sides of it, I will get exactly one set. What necessitates that I keep rolling it over and over? Random doesnt imply that I should do that even remotely.

 

[Mike]

Yes, causality is random

No, causality cannot be random by definition. It can cause a random event to occur, but causality itself must be described systematically and consistently with physical laws. If it were random, it wouldn't be causality.

 

[_Keno_]

No, causality cannot be random by definition. It can cause a random event to occur, but causality itself must be described systematically and consistently with physical laws. If it were random, it wouldn't be causality.

This is definitely true for everything in the universe today, but, given that something unknown is the cause, and the birth of the universe is the effect, the fact that we ended up with our current set of physical laws seems completely random. I believe the current discussion revolves around this idea (that the exact same "cause" could have given us many different sets of laws, but it randomly gave us the one we have today. So in the context of what we were discussing, causality is partially random).

 

[Mike]

Causality is still not random in that context. The random outcome of an event has nothing to do with causality, as causality only deals with the cause of that event, not its outcome. You may be confusing causality with determinism.

 

[_Keno_]

Causality is still not random in that context. The random outcome of an event has nothing to do with causality, as causality only deals with the cause of that event, not its outcome.

I'm using "the relationship between cause and effect" as my definition. What are you using?

 

[Mike]

In physics a cause generally refers to the phenomenon that initiated an effect as bound by physical laws. So if the physical law describes a random outcome, the effect will be random. But the cause doesn't deal with that.

 

[Dre89]

No, my beliefs aren't a result of an ignorance of science. The point is, the debate about God's existence isn't a scientific one, the question is metaphysical one.

It doesn't matter how the universe originated, whether it be BB, loop theory, no boundary propsal, vacuum influctuation etc. there will still always be the same metaphysical questions to answer. The atheists needs to answer these metaphysical questions before their belief is justified.

Also, in William Lane Craig's debates, none of the atheists actually attack his arguments on probablity, they don't provide an alternate explanation, instead they just exploit the fact he's Christian and just attack Christianity, and occassionally use good arguments like the arguments from evil and non-belief, but virtually every atheist dropped the point about probability, and didn't have an alternate explanation. But anyway, scientific theories aren't really relevant anyway, all the atheist needs really is a positive argument against God's existence, like the argument from non-belief or evil.

When I said causailty is random, I meant the origin of causailty (whatever the atheist considers the first cause to be) is random. Now of all the trillions of combinations of laws, it amazingly chose a set of laws which are totally coherent with each other, and foster life. Now even if we momentarily accept that as plasubile, why has a random source, remained consistent here? Why has it not acted again and changed the laws, or added new ones which imblance the system? How is the source of existence random if it sets laws which are totally coherent anf foster life, then never acts again, preserving this imbalance? A random source of existence would not only use randomness as its method of action, but act a random number of times, when really it's only acted once, otherwise it would alter what its caused and the balance would be lost.

Also, if you accept that existence came out of nothing (I'm asking whether you do or not, that assuming that you do) do you then accept that nothingness= ultimate potency? Because nothingness has no boundaries or definitions, nothing distinct, no shape or form. So basically, if nothingness generted existence, then nothingness is actually omnipotence, which has implications on the theory.

 

[rvkevin]

The atheists needs to answer these metaphysical questions before their belief is justified.

This fails on two accounts. The first and more trivial issue is that atheism is not a belief concerning those metaphysical questions. At most, the only thing an atheist must justify is that they believe that the evidence for theism is unsatisfactory to sustain belief. This has nothing to do with answering any such metaphysical questions. This leads to the other account, an atheist does not need to posit any explanation to realize that the explanation being proposed by theists fail. This should be obvious in any other domain of discourse. If you need clarification or examples, just ask.

Also, in William Lane Craig's debates, none of the atheists actually attack his arguments on probability, they don't provide an alternate explanation, instead they just exploit the fact he's Christian and just attack Christianity, and occasionally use good arguments like the arguments from evil and non-belief, but virtually every atheist dropped the point about probability, and didn't have an alternate explanation.

That is because he doesn't justify his case for the teleological argument very well. An opponent who disagrees with his analysis concerning the probability of life occurring given naturalism can do two things, both of which are poor debating strategies. He can cite opposing authorities that contradict Craig's authorities, which does little since an argument from authority is pointless to begin with. Or he can challenge the assumptions that Craig makes. This would be preferable, except that Craig doesn't actually present his assumptions. This leaves the opponent at guessing what Craig actually used in his analysis, which shouldn't be his responsibility. Not to mention that doing so would probably require teaching Craig simple mathematics for him to understand your objections, which is impossible given the debate format. Not to mention that math is generally a source of confusion among the general public, especially those using Bayesian probability, and bringing it up is generally not recommended in a debate. Since Craig has failed to justify his own argument, a simple reply of "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" should be enough and they needn't waste time on such a vacuous argument. Any knowledgeable audience member should be able to fault the problems in Craig's presentation, so unless you think how fluid Craig's words are is reflective of the soundness of the argument, your point is vapid. Revert back above for the need of an alternate explanation. Saying you can't give an explanation, therefore X, is an argument from ignorance. There are plenty questions that we don't have answers for, that doesn't mean we can fill that gap with God.

 

[Dre89]

Again, I'm not saying that in the absence of an opposing explanation, theism is correct.

Positing a universe without God is a metaphysical proposition.

Again, no one is answering the question I'm asking. Everyone is just resorting to argument from ignorance claims.

How am I making an AFI? I've presented my case, argued that my conclusion is logical in it's own right, regardless of the opposing argument
I've criticised the opposing case,how am I doing an AFI?

I'm still waiting for people to answer my question.

 

[GwJ]

Can someone tell me what metaphysical means?

Sorry.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

metaphysics is basically the philosophical study of the nature of reality. I don't see how stating that there is a god isn't a metaphysical proposition.

oh yeah and Dre I have a simple question.

What the **** is your question?

 

[Mike]

No, my beliefs aren't a result of an ignorance of science. The point is, the debate about God's existence isn't a scientific one, the question is metaphysical one.

Metaphysics makes claims about the state of the universe without taking into account any experimental evidence. It is a bullcrap field, with as much credibility as a religion. Metaphysical questions are okay to ask, but they should not be answered by anything but through science.

The atheists needs to answer these metaphysical questions before their belief is justified.

What, and a theist has immunity from this? You can not provided a logical or credible argument for the existence of a God. The burden of proof is on whoever is making a claim, which in this case is YOU.

Also, in William Lane Craig's debates, none of the atheists actually attack his arguments on probablity, they don't provide an alternate explanation, instead they just exploit the fact he's Christian and just attack Christianity, and occassionally use good arguments like the arguments from evil and non-belief, but virtually every atheist dropped the point about probability, and didn't have an alternate explanation. But anyway, scientific theories aren't really relevant anyway, all the atheist needs really is a positive argument against God's existence, like the argument from non-belief or evil.

I was hoping you'd be responsible about your sources and attempt to verify them, but I can see now that this will not be the case; so I'm just going to tell you this now: THEY MADE IT UP. The probabilities are completely made up! They have nothing backing them, they are LIES! Please never mention them again.

Assuming you don't believe me, read my previous posts regarding this. I very clearly tell you why those probabilities don't prove ANYTHING even if they were true!

When I said causailty is random, I meant the origin of causailty (whatever the atheist considers the first cause to be) is random. Now of all the trillions of combinations of laws, it amazingly chose a set of laws which are totally coherent with each other, and foster life. Now even if we momentarily accept that as plasubile, why has a random source, remained consistent here? Why has it not acted again and changed the laws, or added new ones which imblance the system? How is the source of existence random if it sets laws which are totally coherent anf foster life, then never acts again, preserving this imbalance? A random source of existence would not only use randomness as its method of action, but act a random number of times, when really it's only acted once, otherwise it would alter what its caused and the balance would be lost.

You are strawmanning. Why would the laws of physics HAVE to change? Why does there need to be constant interference with EVERYTHING that exists? Not every random source must be random without bounds. How do you know this random source hasn't already acted multiple times, and created multiple universes? It doesn't matter if you can't answer these questions, as currently, nobody can. And it doesn't matter that nobody can because it's okay to say "I don't know."

Also, if you accept that existence came out of nothing (I'm asking whether you do or not, that assuming that you do) do you then accept that nothingness= ultimate potency? Because nothingness has no boundaries or definitions, nothing distinct, no shape or form. So basically, if nothingness generted existence, then nothingness is actually omnipotence, which has implications on the theory.

Being able to create a universe doesn't imply omnipotency.

 

[Dre89]

PNSB- The question was how is it logical to believe the BB came from nothing, and constantly sutains itself, when the probability of that is literally one in trillions.

I also asked if people believe something came from nothings, and I think I also asked whether people believe that multiple pirnciples can co-exist simulataneously as self-necessary without a prior cause. Basically, what that latter question is asking is whether you belive the first cause, or ultimate reality, could be a number of things such as space, time, matter, energy, all existing together without a prior cause, or if you believe the first cause must be a single unified principle or being.

Metaphysics makes claims about the state of the universe without taking into account any experimental evidence. It is a bullcrap field, with as much credibility as a religion. Metaphysical questions are okay to ask, but they should not be answered by anything but through science.

Firstly, science presupposes metaphysical assumptions.

Secondly, metaphysics precedes what science can observe. For example the question "can multiple principles simultaneously co-exist self-necessarily with a prior cause" is a metaphysical question. Science can't answer this, because to do science, principles such as time, space, matter, etc. all already needed to be in existence, because certain principles constitute scientific observation.

Science can give us an explanation of the origin of the universe after those principles that allow for observation are in place. Science won't be able to tell us what preceded those principles.

What, and a theist has immunity from this? You can not provided a logical or credible argument for the existence of a God. The burden of proof is on whoever is making a claim, which in this case is YOU.

When did I say the theist has no burden of proof? The burden of proof is on both sides. For example, if show that the probabilty of the BB occuring by chance and sustaining itself is one in trillions, yet it is apparently scientific fact that it occurred, at that point it becomes more rational to accept theism. This doesn't mean the theist has won, but the BoP then shifts onto the atheist to find either an alternate explanation, or a positive atheist argument, to make their belief rational again.

I was hoping you'd be responsible about your sources and attempt to verify them, but I can see now that this will not be the case; so I'm just going to tell you this now: THEY MADE IT UP. The probabilities are completely made up! They have nothing backing them, they are LIES! Please never mention them again.

Ironically, you didn't provide any evidence for the claim you just made.

But the improbability is just common sense. Whenever has a totally random agent ever made something totally coherent? Whenever has an Earthquake hit a paintstore, and a beautiful painting was the result? Not only that, but seeing as the agent itself is random, there would be a random number of Earthquakes at the store, yet the painting is NEVER ruined.

Seriously, when has something like ever occurred?

Assuming you don't believe me, read my previous posts regarding this. I very clearly tell you why those probabilities don't prove ANYTHING even if they were true!

Even if they weren't true, it doesn't really matter. Theists don't believe in God because of those probabilites. That's a fraction of one of the several arguments, it just forces the atheist into an alternate explanation or positive atheist argument. The atheist has to respond, they can't just say "no that's wrong your sources suck" which is pretty much what you just did.

You are strawmanning. Why would the laws of physics HAVE to change? Why does there need to be constant interference with EVERYTHING that exists? Not every random source must be random without bounds. How do you know this random source hasn't already acted multiple times, and created multiple universes? It doesn't matter if you can't answer these questions, as currently, nobody can. And it doesn't matter that nobody can because it's okay to say "I don't know."

Because the agent itself is random. This is different to saying the agent's method of action is random. The latter would be to act only at certain structured times, but the act itself would be carried out in a random way. An example would be someone reaching into a hat every ten minutes and randomly pulling out a ticket. The way he choses the ticket is randomness, but when he acts is not random. However, the source of existence must not only have randomness as its methodology of action, but would act at random times too. Let's suppose a random painting machine sits infront of a canvas. As an atheist, what you're saying is that it through random paints on the canvas, and a beautiful painting was the result. Now even if we accept that as remotely probable, what yo uare then saying is that every time the mahcine happens to randomly act again, it NEVER happens to touch that canvas again, despite the machine being totally random (yes I know machines aren't random but you get my point).

Being able to create a universe doesn't imply omnipotency.

But nothingness creating something does imply omnipotence, because nothingness has no form or structure. So either nothingness can create nothing (the more logical position) or if nothingness can create something (illogical) it can create everything, because it has no form, no limitation. If you're saying that nothingness is limited, you're then saying nothingness has a form, which makes it no longer nothingness.