Definitive evidence for Design!

  • Thread starter Thread starter prodigalson2011
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sair

Truly, one of the most revolting aspects of the Christian faith - the notion of vicarious atonement and the glorification of torture.

Revolting only to people who think they have nothing to atone for,and who do not believe that good can come from human suffering.

**It seems typical of a certain type of believer to assert that the likes of Sartre and Camus ‘understood’ atheism, because they seemed to declare that life is absurd without gods. As though this is some kind of knock-down argument that modern atheists have never contemplated. As for Sartre’s reversion, if it’s fact - and not just the usual tale made up about the deathbed conversions of prominent intellectuals - well, then, I guess he just couldn’t handle the truth… **

Unfortunately for your case, there are virtually no recorded cases of great minds who have converted to atheism on their deathbed. Dying is a time for hope, not the usual atheist absolutism that God does not exist.
 
Bradski said:
The old thread is dead. This is a new one. Make a new start. Enter into a discussion.
Click to expand...
Actually, Bradski, if you read the first post you will see that this thread is actually a continuation of the old one. You should know we Catholics are all about resurrection. 😉 And on that note, I repeat my invitation to Sair, whose exchange with myself was used as a starting point for this thread:
prodigalson2011 said:
40.png
Sair:
Since Tonyrey has so helpfully jumped in with a few counterarguments whilst I’ve been away from the forums, I might hang back and see how this thread develops - it appears from the use of my posts from other threads that I’ve already contributed in absentia.
Click to expand...
This thread is a continuation of the thread from which those posts were taken, and I started the thread with them to give you the opportunity to respond to my retorts since our previous thread was closed before you were able to do so. I still await your responses. 😉
Click to expand...
As I started this thread with our unfinished conversation, I hope you’ll be so generous as to reply. No offense to tonyrey, who did a great job of playing surrogate interlocutor, but I’m not one for ending debates by proxy.
 
Bradski said:
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. So asking ‘Is a lack of belief in gods true?’ doesn’t make sense. But you could ask if it’s true that someone is an atheist. And you could ask that atheist if he believes his position to be honestly held.

You could also find an atheist to whom you could ask: ‘Is it true that there are no gods?’
Click to expand...
To lack belief in God is to not have an opinion one way or the other about the things of God. The people who sincerely lack belief in God (or gods), which is agnosticism, will often join in debates about God to ask the believers about the reasons of the hope that is in them; but they will not choose sides in the debates until they have collected all the necessary information that will help make it possible for them to form an opinion about the existence or non-existence of God. The people who say that they lack belief in God, as some atheists claim to lack, while at the same time attacking a person’s belief in God, is a contradiction; and it’s also an indication that their denial to the truth of God is not lacking anything except perhaps a little common sense and logic.
 
shoe said:
To lack belief in God is to not have an opinion one way or the other about the things of God. The people who sincerely lack belief in God (or gods), which is agnosticism, will often join in debates about God to ask the believers about the reasons of the hope that is in them; but they will not choose sides in the debates until they have collected all the necessary information that will help make it possible for them to form an opinion about the existence or non-existence of God. The people who say that they lack belief in God, as some atheists claim to lack, while at the same time attacking a person’s belief in God, is a contradiction; and it’s also an indication that their denial to the truth of God is not lacking anything except perhaps a little common sense and logic.
Click to expand...
👍 Both cute and acute!
 
Charlemagne_II said:
it is a belief there are no gods, a belief for which there is no evidence whatever.
Click to expand...
So there is no evidence that there are no gods. Unfortunately for you, Charles, the only direction we can go from there is to say that therefore there are gods.

Now you’ve got more than one. That’s awkward…
 
Bradski said:
So there is no evidence that there are no gods. Unfortunately for you, Charles, the only direction we can go from there is to say that therefore there are gods.

Now you’ve got more than one. That’s awkward…
Click to expand...
There are countless subatomic particles. That is unbelievably awkward… 😉

Occam’s Razor!
 
Bradski
**
So there is no evidence that there are no gods. Unfortunately for you, Charles, the only direction we can go from there is to say that therefore there are gods.

Now you’ve got more than one. That’s awkward… **

Not in the least, if you’ve got the right One. 👍
 
It would be very interesting to know the statistics for the number of unanswered posts for and against Design. It would give some indication of the relative strength of the two views. If statements are regularly unrefuted and questions regularly unanswered it is reasonable to believe they cannot be refuted or answered satisfactorily by the defaulters. Until they do so they are undermining their position rather than consolidating it -and the more dogmatic they have been the less convincing they become!🙂
 
This is an unanswered post from the previous thread about Design:
**Sair **
Click to expand...
But that is the whole point - there is no evidence that the universe as we know it bears the mark of an intelligent designer, and ample evidence that it arose naturally, undesigned and unplanned.*
What is the evidence that the universe arose naturally, undesigned and unplanned?
The thing is, if it can be established - which it can - that conditions such as those giving rise to the universe as we know it can arise naturally, there is no necessity for the assumption of intelligent design.
Click to expand...
“if” is the key word.
Why assume an extra complex entity when it isn’t necessary? God is surplus to requirements.
Click to expand...
That question and assertion are based on an “if”!
This ignores every possible and substantial undermining of the notion that the only explanation for universal order is the front-loading of an intelligently-designed plan.
Click to expand...
“possible” is another key word.🙂
You can’t say that science will never explain why the universe functions as it does - you can only say that it hasn’t completely explained it yet.
Click to expand...
You can’t say science will ever explain **why **the universe functions as it does.
Probability calculations cited by creationists are inherently flawed, firstly because they overturn the proper functioning of science by assuming the conclusion they are trying to prove…
Click to expand...
That argument could be applied to any research that sets out to validate a theory!
…secondly because they fail to take into account the fact that we don’t know whether the universal constants are mutually dependent, and thus affect the probability calculations related to each.
Click to expand...
Ignorance is not a sound basis for an objection to an explanation in the absence of a superior explanation.
And even if the universal constants in their present - and friendly - state are vanishingly improbable by creationist accounts, and leaving aside all possible variables, their improbability still has to be contrasted with the probability of the existence of a vast intelligent entity that has always existed, yet leaves no trace of its interaction with the rest of the universe.
Click to expand...
“leaves no trace” is another unproved assumption
What is the probability that such an entity could remain undemonstrated throughout the history of the universe? High, perhaps, if you have a majority of people conditioned to believe, unquestioningly, that such an entity exists.
Click to expand...
What people believe is irrelevant to the truth of the matter.
Finally, as I’ve said before, the idea of universal order is highly anthropomorphic - we perceive order because we evolved within the universe as it is. If we’d evolved in an entirely different universe, with different constants, and were just dumped here, then - assuming we could survive in the first place - the universe we presently inhabit might well seem nonsensical.
Click to expand...
Since science is based on the principle that there is universal order science too must be anthropomorphic!
In fact, if one takes seriously the theistic doctrine that we actually belong in a realm beyond the universe as we know it - the Christian concept of heaven, for example - then perhaps the world we inhabit should not make any sense to us…
Click to expand...
If one takes seriously the atheistic doctrine that we don’t belong anywhere and exist entirely by Chance the world we inhabit does not make any sense whatsoever, i.e. everything is quite absurd.

Reason is not an aberration - nor are persons** illusions**…
 
tonyrey said:
That argument could be applied to any research that sets out to validate part of a theory

Since science is based on the principle that there is universal order science too must be anthropomorphic …
Click to expand...
And this also proves that science is one of the sciences or/and one day could not be a science .

God bless
 
tonyrey

What is the evidence that the universe arose naturally, undesigned and unplanned?

Good luck getting an answer to that one.
 
aragonjohn1 said:
And this also proves that science is one of the sciences or/and one day could not be a science .

God bless
Click to expand...
The term “science” is as nebulous as materialism with its undefined limits!

God bless

(I used to stay in Aragon regularly. 🙂
 
Those who attempt to destroy Design are attempting to destroy themselves!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top