I forgot to mention this, but it just came up in something I was reading…
No one mentioned your feelings.
Yes, the good ol’ appeal to ignorance never dies. “Oh look, here’s something we can’t explain. Well, no point worrying, must be God what dun it, prove it aint so.”
Not sure what you’re saying.
Didn’t understand what you’re saying here. Theists generally don’t personify nature, since doing so makes nature into a deity. If nature isn’t a person then it has no plan and cannot design, it can naturally only be what it is, natural.
If there are natural laws then there must be a natural Lawgiver.
Person, place and time are merely accidental properties, none of which are essential to the being of a leaf or a tree.
As l, and others, keep writing: everything is designed. I believe it is you claiming that some things are not designed.
And if we cannot differentiate then we must also have an Intelligent Designer for nothing exists that has not been designed. You haven’t yet given an example of an un-designed being that stands up to examination. The existence of leaves and trees, like IPads and nuclear reactors are explainable by natural laws. Give us an example of a real thing that has no design.
Since I submit that all things are designed, why do keep asking for an example of an un-designed thing?
All leaves are designed regardless of their location, regardless of whether an intelligence intended or did non-intend that location, regardless of whether it is spring, summer fall or winter.
I suppose “Father’s nature” is theologically more precise but it does not poetically parallel “Mother Nature” quite as well.
You did. With the labels “nice” and “nasty”. Those are not objective terms.
Again, just because you may not like it doesn’t preclude the potential of reality. A loving God also makes hurricanes and earthquakes as well as puppies and kittens.
Your hidden premise here was hidden with good reason; it’s unsound. The generic claim of “Man should not tamper with what God has created” would mean that we couldn’t harvest lumber and stone for house-building since we would have to harm forests and rock formations in order to gather those materials. We couldn’t engage in agriculture because that involved clearing and plowing otherwise untouched land and then selectively breeding crops to be more yielding.
Does this group include Spanish Baptists that publicly seem to court atheism far more aggressively than their supposed faith?
Oh this tired old canard…
My understanding of Big Bang Cosmology is not that there is no cause, but that there are no information known or inferred about the universe prior to to a certain time. This could be worded as “there is no known cause” which communicates something different than “there is no cause.” There have been people that have presented many hypotheses about the state of things beyond the time period covered by the Big Bang, but as of yet these hypotheses haven’t gotten enough supported evidence to be considered a scientific theory.
I can’t think of anything that would set it apart from “agency detection” that developed without the intent of a god/God. It’s something I can only talk about in the subjunctive and can’t show as true or false. So I see the answer to your question as an unknown.
Is that considered problematic? Also it sounds as though you are saying that everything that ever has occurred or ever will occur is continually and only the result of decisions to produce that outcome. It sounds like you are saying all actions and events are directed.
That is similar to the expression that started this discussion back in message 40-something; where something was attributed to God and Bradski had said no evidence had been to convince some people.
Well, atheists have defeated my several attempts to get something positive out of atheism.
Different people use the word “atheism” in different ways. Your first message in this thread suggest that your usage is one that is aligned with what some people label as “Strong atheism”; the assertion that there are no gods. The term is also used for people that not convinced of the existence of any god/gods/God. I can’t say that itself is indicative of anything positive or negative in someone’s life. You can find people of this position in many positions in life; such a grouping is diverse. The social environments in which one lives also are diverse; in some there is little concern with whether or not another person is convinced of the existence of a god/gods/God. In some not being theologically aligned or not can lead to one being treated with more friendliness or hostility. Being a position that is held by a diverse group of people I don’t think that you’ll find something universally negative or universally positive of people that have that position.
I don’t completely agree with that; I’ve not concluded that there is no possibility of a convincing explanation to someone that is not yet convinced. There are also those that may be convinced of something that may require occasional confirming statements and information to remain convinced. For them explanations may be necessary. Beliefs sometimes change with influence from experience, information, and self reflection.
Many of them have been religious people forwarding religious ideas.
I really think that’s as good as it gets. Sometimes, oftentimes, the agnostics win. Those buggars alone have the smug privilege of being right by default.
There is an element of determinism there, right? But “will” creates a problem. Even so, it operates within the parameters of its design. There are lots of things “will” can’t do. Even so, I doubt there are any events that occur that would surprise the God that wrote its code (a la “open theism”).
For reasonable proof or evidence: what’s is reasonable to one may not be for the other. And so it’s always been. Hell, I still think OJ is guilty - plain as day. Obviously others dissented from my view.
Which is why they should clarify their belief if it departs from the classic etymological Greek.
Many of the people I’ve encountered that self apply that label use the definition “without god” and apply qualifiers to better identify their position. They use this label inclusive of both those that make the positive assert that there are no gods and those that say they only are not convinced of any gods. The usual conflicts I’ve observed occur from this usage is when a person in the latter position is speaking to someone that is applying the first definition. During their exchange when it is made clear that the person doesn’t see the existence of god(s)/God as something impossible a not unusual reaction is to believe that the person is shifting their position while the person that was self labeling as an atheist is continuing to use their their label as they had previously. I believe o_mlly might have observed this based on a sentence written in an earlier message.
It seams to be the case with many labels those outside of the self labeled group use the label slightly different than those that apply the label to themselves. As an example, consider the word “feminist.” That word carries positive and negative connotations with different people. As is the case with many other labels those connotations influence the meaning and usage.
This is just moving the goalposts back. And is nothing more than a vague deism at best. All you are saying is that if there are natural laws, then they must have come from somewhere.
Indeed. Everything that is natural. Everything that has evolved naturally. Nests and orchards and iPads have not. There is evidence of design. Evidence of purpose.
This is the corner into which you have painted yourself. If you can’t actually differentiate between that which is designed and that which is natural (people like Behe claim that we can and indeed spend a lifetime trying to prove it), then there is zero justification for claiming that therefore it all must be designed.
Well, now we know that He didn’t just light the blue touch paper but is directly responsible for the design of literally everything, we can examine what He’s given us
What was that? It sounded like the noise they make on quiz shows when someone gives the wrong answer. Except that in this case it wasn’t so much wrong as fatuous.
Gentle Jesus, meek and mild.
Irrelevant. You claim your deity designs everything, and therefore designed this worm to burrow into the eyes of children. Logically then, you are going against your deity’s will if you try to prevent it blinding people.
Christ does not design worms to burrow into people’s eyes. You cannot rationally reconcile the NT with a deity which designs worms to burrow in eyes.
So, would you now introduce a corollary to your former observation, that is: If there is evidence of purpose then there is evidence of design. If true then the contra-positive must also be true: If there is no evidence of design then there is no evidence of purpose. Show me such a thing.
Hey, I’m still in your corner looking for your example of an un-designed thing that will withstand reasonable examination. But you keep cutting this corner on me.
We’ll still need some argument and examples to support the claim. Start with explaining how one knows a priori how things should look?
I have not claimed there is no difference between natural and designed-purposeful-unnatural things. I claim that there is no ontological difference - all things are designed and purposeful and, therefore, natural. Got an example of a thing that is not designed?
Let’s make sure that we differentiate between “order” and “design”. Snow crystals exhibit order in a beautiful hexagonal shape, but there is no need to assume a design. Crystals also grow and exhibit order. On the beach the waves and the wind might take three twigs of equal size and arrange them in the form of equilateral triangle. There is order there, but not design. Even the leaves and twigs could be arranged in the shape of a nest, by sheer chance. The complexity of the constituent parts does not help either, since “complexity” is not an inherent property, it just measures the knowledge of the observer. The purpose does not help either, because it is also not an inherent property. A good sized branch of a tree can be used as a blackjack, but it was not created for that purpose.
An explanation is required…
The existence of an orderly universe with natural laws requires an explanation because there is no obvious reason for chaos to develop into a coherent, intelligible system.
The power of reason itself requires explanation.
The existence of anomalies doesn’t prove the universe is undesigned. In an immensely complex system with countless beings pursuing different ends it is inevitable there is conflict and interference with harmful results. To think there could be an earthly paradise is an infantile fantasy. Attenborough’s worms are always being trotted out as evidence of non-Design but they are an exception rather than a fundamental rule. Otherwise life wouldn’t have survived and developed to such an extent some of us can pontificate that everything is purposeless! The flaw in your argument is that there is an element of Chance within the framework of Design. The truth is usually found between two extremes…
