God's "will" in life vs. random chance

[wanstronian]

Your last statement is pretty silly. We ALL make “use of stuff that can be shown, irrefutably, to exist.” There are plenty of Christian scientists you know, and of course we all use material things every day of our life. We’re ALL materialists in that sense. So what?

Sorry, I thought my point was obvious. Let me spell it out in simple terms. Firstly let me remind you that the particular point was in regard to the origin of “order, organization, information, development and synthesis”: Whereas the materialist bases his/her beliefs on stuff that can be proved to exist and freely admits that there are some things we don’t know, the ‘immaterialist’ (theist) bases their beliefs on an arbitrary magical supernatural ‘something’ for which no evidence exists and calls it an explanation.

The argument is about the hidden CAUSE of that irrefutably existing stuff.

Indeed. The theist invents something, the materialist just admits we don’t know and (in the case of scientific materialists), tries to discover the real answer.

Now you tell me how this universe came into being, and why it all hangs together in an organised fashion, why the laws as such are so consistent, why physical Constants are constant, and very finely tuned, why there are nano-machines in the cell, how they got there, and do it without referring to intelligent design. Show me the step-wise random processes as to how these incredibly complicated machines just “happened” to eventuate.

As I said, I don’t know. Nor do you, but you pretend you do by virtue of irrationally introducing a magical dad in the sky.

Show me your basis for believing there is no design behind these brilliant little biological machines.

No evidence of design. Therefore no belief that design was involved.

Show me a single man-made object that did not involve “intelligent” design.

There aren’t any. What does that prove? You’ve just manufactured a circular argument: “All man made objects show evidence of design by man. All God-created objects show evidence of design by God. Therefore God exists.”

When you can do that, I’ll believe you’ve got a case. Until then, I’ll stick with God, whom from personal experience I know exists. And judges.

No, you don’t know he exists. If you believe you know then you are delusional. You can believe all you want, but you do not know. Not sure whether the ‘And judges’ was some sort of threat-by-proxy, but to be honest, it makes little difference. If God exists and is as good as all the believers make out, then he’s unlikely to punish me simply for thinking rationally. It’s not as though I have a choice of whether to believe or not. If he made me this way, then it’s his fault I don’t believe.

Then tell me why a blind universe should move towards intelligence at all.

No real reason. But it’s had a long time to occur, and it clearly has occurred. There doesn’t need to be an underlying intent to it all. That’s the biggest dogma from which the theist cannot escape.

 

[wanstronian]

If it’s silly philosophers of science are silly and wasting their time .Do you think science can make no contribution whatsoever to an explanation of the principles on which it is based?
You are evading the fact that order, organization, information, development and synthesis are associated with a rational mind rather than non-rational processes.
You are also ignoring the fact that rationality is the source of all your arguments that irrationality is a fundamental attribute of reality. There is no need to ask how rationality originated because it is clearly a far more powerful and adequate factor than irrationality.
You are again resorting to natural “flim-flam” as is demonstrated by the words “we can demonstrate”. If you didn’t have a rational mind you wouldn’t be able to demonstrate anything.
Again you are evading the fact that the mind can perform feats beyond the scope of mindless objects.
Can you demonstrate that the brain - and everything else for that matter - is not the product of mind? I prefer to be brainless rather than mindless! An intangible principle created by a tangible lump of tissue? If anything is “flim-flam” this is. Can you explain precisely how this feat is achieved?
The mind which you refuse to accept as an autonomous entity. Can you explain precisely how this biochemical interaction develops the power of insight, intuition and introspection?
You have not explained why it is an extreme example rather than a fundamental fact on which all our thinking is based. You abandoned the thread because it is impossible to refute that fact.
This is a desperate manoeuvre to evade the issue and you know it.
Let me spell it out so that there is no possible confusion. Our stream of thoughts, feelings and perceptions in your mind is the only immediate, direct knowledge we have. WE infer the existence of everything else, including other minds, from our perceptions which are consistent with the perceptions of other people. The mind is the starting point but it is not the sole reality…

Look, Tony, we’ve been around all these issues many times. The fact is that you are combining your lack of understanding, the improbability of certain events, and your dogmatic belief and saying, “God must have done it, it’s the only explanation.” I don’t care that you’re deluded, and I’m certainly not going to waste my time trotting out the same answers to the same questions for you. When you have something other than your personal incredulity to offer as evidence, then rock up and let’s discuss it.

 

[tonyrey]

**tonyrey **Do you think science can make no contribution whatsoever to an explanation of the principles on which it is based?
You are evading the fact that order, organization, information, **development and synthesis are associated with a rational mind rather than non-rational processes.
You are also ignoring the fact that rationality is the source of all your arguments that irrationality is a fundamental attribute of reality. There is no need to ask how rationality originated because it is clearly a far more powerful and adequate factor than irrationality.
You are again resorting to natural “flim-flam” as is demonstrated by the words “we can demonstrate”. If you didn’t have a rational mind you wouldn’t be able to demonstrate anything!
You are evading the fact that the mind can perform feats beyond the scope of mindless objects.
Can you demonstrate that the brain - and everything else for that matter - is not the product of mind? An intangible principle created by a tangible lump of tissue? Can you explain precisely how this feat is achieved? I prefer to be brainless rather than mindless!
The evidence is in our minds - which you refuse to accept as autonomous entitities. Can you explain precisely how biochemical interaction develops the power of insight, intuition and introspection?
You have not explained why the fact that we are thinking is an extreme example rather than a fundamental **fact on which all our thinking is based. **You abandoned that thread because it is impossible to refute that fact. **
This is a desperate manoeuvre to evade the issue and you know it.
Let me spell it out so that there is no possible confusion. Our stream of thoughts, feelings and perceptions in your mind is the only immediate, direct knowledge we have. WE infer the existence of everything else, including other minds, from our perceptions which are consistent with the perceptions of other people. The mind is our starting point but it is not the sole reality…

Look, Tony, we’ve been around all these issues many times. The fact is that you are combining your lack of understanding, the improbability of certain events, and your dogmatic belief and saying, “God must have done it, it’s the only explanation.” I don’t care that you’re deluded, and I’m certainly not going to waste my time trotting out the same answers to the same questions for you. When you have something other than your personal incredulity to offer as evidence, then rock up and let’s discuss it.

It is far easier to resort to an argumentum ad hominem:

“your lack of understanding”, “your dogmatic belief”, “you’re deluded” and "your “personal incredulity”

than answer precise questions and refute **specific **points…

 

[wanstronian]

It is far easier to resort to an argumentum ad hominem:

“your lack of understanding”, “your dogmatic belief”, “you’re deluded” and "your “personal incredulity”

than answer precise questions and refute **specific **points…

Firstly, you need to understand exactly what ‘ad hominem’ means.

Secondly, I repeat that I’ve answered all these questions before. So I haven’t failed to answer your questions. I’ve just refused to answer them all over again.

 

[tonyrey]

Firstly, you need to understand exactly what ‘ad hominem’ means.

Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent’s arguments or assertions. - wikipedia

“your lack of understanding”, “your dogmatic belief”, “you’re deluded” and "your “personal incredulity” fit perfectly into this category of fallacies.

Secondly, I repeat that I’ve answered all these questions before. So I haven’t failed to answer your questions. I’ve just refused to answer them all over again.

You fantasize that you have answered them! That makes a change from calling them “stupid questions” - as you have just done on another thread…

 

[wanstronian]

Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument.

Exactly. None of my observations on your logical ineptitude or debating honesty are irrelevant to the argument. They are directly relevant because your arguments are based on misinterpretation, weak logic and dishonesty. Therefore, no ad hominem. If I had said, “What do you know, you stink of soup,” then this would be an ad hominem

.This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent’s arguments or assertions. - wikipedia

And as I pointed out, your methods directly influence your statements. Your statements are weak and incorrect partly because of your dogmatic beliefs and “la la I can’t hear you” refusal to accept fact, and partly because your debating method is to twist your opponent’s words to mean something new then attack that straw man.

“your lack of understanding”, “your dogmatic belief”, “you’re deluded” and "your “personal incredulity” fit perfectly into this category of fallacies.

No - they’re my honest beliefs, drawn from many frustrating and fruitless encounters with your use of the techniques I outline above.

You fantasize that you have answered them! That makes a change from calling them “stupid questions” - as you have just done on another thread…

I have answered them. Feel free to revisit our conversations and see for yourself.
And, for the reasons I point out on that other thread, they were stupid questions.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey

Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument.
Exactly. None of my observations on your logical ineptitude or debating honesty are irrelevant to the argument. They are directly relevant because your arguments are based on misinterpretation, weak logic and dishonesty. Therefore, no ad hominem. If I had said, “What do you know, you stink of soup,” then this would be an ad hominem
Please justify your allegations with examples of:

1. My " logical ineptitude"
2. My “debating dishonesty”
3. Weak “logic”

Your statements are weak and incorrect partly because of your dogmatic beliefs and “la la I can’t hear you” refusal to accept fact, and partly because your debating method is to twist your opponent’s words to mean something new then attack that straw man.

Please justify your allegations with examples of:

1. My dogmatic beliefs
2. Refusal to accept facts
   6…Twisting my opponent’s words to mean something new

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey

Please justify your allegations with examples of:

1. My " logical ineptitude"
2. My “debating dishonesty”
3. My “weak logic”

Your statements are weak and incorrect partly because of your dogmatic beliefs and “la la I can’t hear you” refusal to accept fact, and partly because your debating method is to twist your opponent’s words to mean something new then attack that straw man.

Please justify your allegations with examples of:

1. My dogmatic beliefs
2. Refusal to accept facts
   6…Twisting my opponent’s words to mean something new

 

[wanstronian]

Why did you delete your last post, Tony?

 

[wanstronian]

Please justify your allegations with examples of:

1. My " logical ineptitude"
2. My “debating dishonesty”
3. My “weak logic”

Please justify your allegations with examples of:

1. My dogmatic beliefs
2. Refusal to accept facts
   6…Twisting my opponent’s words to mean something new

I will, but not tonight. It’s 00:24 here and I’ve had a couple of beers tonight. Responding to your demands will take a little time to link to recent threads. I may not get back to you until after the weekend, but I will get back to you.

 

[tonyrey]

I will, but not tonight. It’s 00:24 here and I’ve had a couple of beers tonight. Responding to your demands will take a little time to link to recent threads. I may not get back to you until after the weekend, but I will get back to you.

While you’re at it please confirm that you reject the following propositions:

1. Our stream of thoughts, feelings and perceptions in our mind is the only immediate, direct knowledge we have.
2. We infer the existence of everything else, including other minds, from our perceptions consistent with the perceptions of others.

 

[wanstronian]

While you’re at it please confirm that you reject the following propositions:

1. Our stream of thoughts, feelings and perceptions in our mind is the only immediate, direct knowledge we have.
2. We infer the existence of everything else, including other minds, from our perceptions consistent with the perceptions of others.

Why would I reject those?

 

[tonyrey]

While you’re at it please confirm that you reject the following propositions:

So you do accept them!