Do Atheists have a reasonable doubt?

[IWantGod]

And a humming birds beak is just the right shape and length to enable it to feed on nectar

That’s not the argument i’m making. In fact i made it clear in post 328, that while it appears similar to my argument, that this kind of argument would be an error because it can clearly be put down to coincidence that having the right shape and size will allow access to something. I am fully aware of the possibility of error in this kind of argument. But alas you probably didn’t read the whole post and jumped to the conclusion that you are intellectually superior. Poor Christians.

And it is absolutely amazing that everyone on the planet has just the right amount of skin to cover their bodies. Coincidence? Yeah, sure!

That’s not the argument either

Although something tells me you know where this is going and you will exit the conversation as a means of damage control.

If you don’t understand the argument, you have no way of accessing the intentions of the person who raised it.

The argument is that there is an environment that can in principle be sensed and known, and beings have come into existence that have the nature to sense and know it. This relationship is teleological because the possibility of the two presuppose each-others existence and natures, and while they may be dependent on blind physical processes to be actual, their relationship is evidently not a coincidence and cannot be explained by blind natural processes for reasons i have continuously repeated (a lack of foresight and intention).

Now, you keep ignoring this fundamental claim and replacing it with straw-men, false imitations of the argument, and knocking them down. You claim victory when you haven’t even begun to address the real argument.

I see no point in us debating this any further. You either get it or you don’t. And you don’t get it.

 

[PickyPicky]

I don’t expect a response to this from @ProdglArchitect, but just to clear away what my response would have been

1: We know that time is not infinite. As a quality of physical existence, time began when physical existence began. All evidence we have says that our universe had a starting point, as such there is no possibility of there being infinite time through which to process an infinite sequence of changes. There is no evidence for any universes existing prior to this one, and even if there was it would only push the question up a level, not answer it.

This restricts the question to our universe, which is not necessarily everything. Any argument which assumes there is only one universe, or no sequence of universes, is not sound.

#2: Even if there was infinite time, you could still never reach a definite point in the causal chain because there would always be an infinite number of steps prior to that point, so you could never actually reach that point

This is a Tortoise and Hare argument. An infinite series can sum to a finite quantity.

But, as I say, The Architect is very reasonably restricting the debate to two, so Imam dipping out.

 

[IWantGod]

An infinite series can sum to a finite quantity.

Conceptually yes. Objectively an infinite number cannot be the sum of a finite number of irreducible states. 10 irreducible states (or points of change), each one proceeding the other, is only ten and there cannot be an actually infinite number of them.

 

[Bradskii]

The argument is that there is an environment that can in principle be sensed and known, and beings have come into existence that have the nature to sense and know it. This relationship is teleological because the possibility of the two presuppose each-others existence and natures, and while they may be dependent on blind physical processes to be actual, their relationship is evidently not a coincidence and cannot be explained by blind natural processes for reasons i have continuously repeated (a lack of foresight and intention).

An environment that IN PRINCIPLE can be sensed? How on earth can you tack on ‘in principle’ when talking about physical reality? How can a physical environment NOT be available to the senses? How can you even start an argument that depends on you suggesting that it is one half of some mysterious teleogical slight of hand which then fortuitously creates conscious beings that sense it.

Physical reality can be sensed. It must be something other than utter nothingness. There has to be something there to enable it to be called physical reality. It has to be physical (I can’t believe I’m having to actually type this out). It’s the only game in town. There are no other options. It cannot ‘in principle’ be sensed because if it couldn’t there wouldn’t be anything there.

Then life, then consciousness and then self awareness. Easy.

But you think this was designed. So maybe you have some ideas of how it could have turned out differently if it was nothing but natural processes. There have to be alternatives otherwise your argument fails before you’ve even begun. So what are they?

 

[Bradskii]

I don’t expect a response to this from @ProdglArchitect, but just to clear away what my response would have been

ProdglArchitect:

1: We know that time is not infinite. As a quality of physical existence, time began when physical existence began. All evidence we have says that our universe had a starting point, as such there is no possibility of there being infinite time through which to process an infinite sequence of changes. There is no evidence for any universes existing prior to this one, and even if there was it would only push the question up a level, not answer it.

This restricts the question to our universe, which is not necessarily everything. Any argument which assumes there is only one universe, or no sequence of universes, is not sound.

You beat me to it. There doesn’t have to be an infinite number of steps in a cyclical universe. But the cycle can be infinite. See any article or video by Sir Roger Penrose regarding this matter. Here for example: New evidence for cyclic universe claimed by Roger Penrose and colleagues – Physics World

Once that has been proposed (and a lot of maths produced to show that it’s feasable), then any argument that proposes anything different must at least implicitly infer that ‘should Penrose’s ideas be wrong then X, Y and Z’.

And if we whip out Mr. occams razor, then I know what I’m left with.

 

[IWantGod]

An environment that IN PRINCIPLE can be sensed? How on earth can you tack on ‘in principle’ when talking about physical reality? How can a physical environment NOT be available to the senses?

It’s irrelevant.

Physical reality can be sensed. It must be something other than utter nothingness.

This does not address my argument.

There are no other options. It cannot ‘in principle’ be sensed because if it couldn’t there wouldn’t be anything there.

Again this point you are making is irrelevant. The point is that there is an environment that can in principle be sensed and known and that the possibility of something coming into existence that can know it is not a coincidence. Your whole point that if there where not an environment it would be nothing that could be sensed or known, is pointless and irrelevant. It does nothing to challenge the argument.

Then life, then consciousness and then self awareness. Easy.

You are asserting that this all follows necessarily and that the self evident relationships involved needs no explanation other than blind natural processes. I have already explained why that is not the case.

 

[IWantGod]

But the cycle can be infinite

The cycle can be potentially infinite. An actually infinite number of irreducible points of change is impossible because there is no such thing as a “number” that quantifies an infinite. In other-words the idea is objectively meaningless. It doesn’t mater if it is a cyclical system or not. Abstract mind games isn’t going to make it so in actual reality.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

An environment that IN PRINCIPLE can be sensed? How on earth can you tack on ‘in principle’ when talking about physical reality? How can a physical environment NOT be available to the senses?

It’s irrelevant.

Physical reality can be sensed. It must be something other than utter nothingness.

This does not address my argument.

There are no other options. It cannot ‘in principle’ be sensed because if it couldn’t there wouldn’t be anything there.

Again this point you are making is irrelevant. The point is that there is an environment that can in principle be sensed and known and that the possibility of something coming into existence that can know it is not a coincidence. Your whole point that if there where not an environment it would be nothing that could be sensed or known, is pointless and irrelevant. It does nothing to challenge the argument.

Then life, then consciousness and then self awareness. Easy.

You are asserting that this all follows necessarily and that the self evident relationships involved needs no explanation other than blind natural processes. I have already explained why that is not the case.

There is no ‘in principle’. I don’t know why you’ve been including it. It means nothing. You cannot have an environment that it anything other than available to senses. So drop it.

And there is no ‘in principle’ that life that emerges from that environment can sense the environment. By definition it cannot do other than that otherwise it would not be life.

So what we have now is:

An environment from which life emerges.

And what’s confusing about that? Where is the mystery? Otherwise, again I will ask, what are the alternatives for this natural process?

 

[IWantGod]

There is no ‘in principle’. I don’t know why you’ve been including it. It means nothing. You cannot have an environment that it anything other than available to senses. So drop it.

I am simply empathising the point that it can be known. It’s a principle of it’s nature that it can be known which is made evident by the fact that natures have come into existence that can know it. There is nothing wrong with my use of the word.

Getting hung up about the word principle does nothing to challenge my argument, it only serves to confuse and lead astray like a red-herring. Creating a sense of error where there is none.

I think it’s clear that you don’t agree with the argument so lets move on.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

But the cycle can be infinite

The cycle can be potentially infinite. An actually infinite number of irreducible points of change is impossible because there is no such thing as a “number” that quantifies an infinite. In other-words the idea is objectively meaningless. It doesn’t mater if it is a cyclical system or not. Abstract mind games isn’t going to make it so in actual reality.

There are no numbers of the cycle. It’s not the case that it happened an infinite number of times. It’s the one event. And either side of the physical reality of the universe that the one event produces, there is no time.

You can’t say it happens an infinite number of times because it’s the one event and you can’t say it’s happened for an infinite time because time is not involved.

 

[IWantGod]

It’s not the case that it happened an infinite number of times.

So you agree that there cannot be an actually infinite number of changes.

Thanks.

 

[Techno2000]

Then life, then consciousness and then self awareness. Easy.

You glossed over a million “Coincidences”.

 

[lelinator]

The argument is that there is an environment that can in principle be sensed and known, and beings have come into existence that have the nature to sense and know it. This relationship is teleological because the possibility of the two presuppose each-others existence and natures,

I think that you’ve overlooked the obvious answer to this teleological dilemma, and that is that the reason that reality is perfectly attuned to the existence of beings that can sense its existence, and specifically the reason why reality is perfectly attuned to my existence, is because I am the cause of reality’s existence.

Everything is perfectly attuned to explain what I am, and where I came from, and you’re right, this isn’t a coincidence. But it’s not because some omniscient God created reality just exactly so, it’s because my mind is creating reality and so everything must be consistent with the fact that I exist.

Everything is perfectly set up to explain what I am, and where I came from. Now I know that you have a number of supposedly logical reasons why this can’t be true, but I believe that every one of them is wrong, and can be demonstrated to be wrong.

But it seems that this thread is extremely busy at the moment, so get back to me whenever you have the opportunity, and the desire.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

There is no ‘in principle’. I don’t know why you’ve been including it. It means nothing. You cannot have an environment that it anything other than available to senses. So drop it.

It’s a principle of it’s nature that it can be known which is made evident by the fact that natures have come into existence that can know it.

And you claim that that cannot be a coincidence. Which is a nonsensical claim because the two things are linked by definition. As you have just pointed out above.

If it was a coincidence then there would be other alternatives. Like ‘it was a coincidence that you bought the same model car as I did’. It’s only a coincidence because you did. If you bought a different model then it wouldn’t be. The fact that there are multiple alternatives makes it a coincidence in one single case.

I have asked you to name just one alternative to your argument. I’ll ask again. Just one will do. If you can’t offer other alternatives then it cannot be described as a coincidence.

 

[IWantGod]

is because I am the cause of reality’s existence.

Yes lelinator, we are all already aware that you think it’s a possibility that you are God. In any case the existence of physical reality would be teleological since in either case an intelligence is the cause of it.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

It’s not the case that it happened an infinite number of times.

So you agree that there cannot be an actually infinite number of changes.

Yes. Because there aren’t any in the cyclical model. It’s one event. Outside time.

 

[IWantGod]

And you claim that that cannot be a coincidence.

It either is or it isn’t. There is nothing non-nonsensical about it.

Thanks for reading.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Then life, then consciousness and then self awareness. Easy.

You glossed over a million “Coincidences”.

I have no hope whatsoever that this will make sense to you. But anyway…Quote by Richard P. Feynman: “You know, the most amazing thing happened to me...”

 

[IWantGod]

Yes. Because there aren’t any in the cyclical model. It’s one event. Outside time.

I’m not two interested in a hypothesis that would deny the very reality of change and then call it a cyclical model. I’ll stick with what i know.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

And you claim that that cannot be a coincidence.

It either is or it isn’t. There is nothing non-nonsensical about it.

Thanks for reading.

I would still like to hear what your alternatives are which make your environment/environment sensing life a coincidence. You cannot use the term ‘coincidence’ without alternatives.

If you have none then your argument fails at the first hurdle. The option you class as a coincidence is the only one available.