Searching for GOD...

[Walter]

It is never too late to use God's gift of free will to accept His offer of eternal salvation

AB ..... a bit off topic;

according to google earth , I am currently about 13 miles from your location. Are you snowed in too.?

[Alan Burns]

AB ..... a bit off topic;

according to google earth , I am currently about 13 miles from your location. Are you snowed in too.?

Plenty of snow, but traffic is still moving.
I have not been out today, fortunately I am within walking distance of the shops, and the pubs!

[Walter]

Plenty of snow, but traffic is still moving.
I have not been out today, fortunately I am within walking distance of the shops, and the pubs!

good for you AB , take it easy on the ice though !

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#26670

But can I remind you that you are posting on the Searching for God thread under the Christian topic.  Am I not allowed to extol the virtues of finding God?

the title is ;
Searching for GOD dot dot dot .  Its not a question !

besides , you already know how SD feels about it.  And its the wrong place to start proselytising

How does SD feel about it? In fact, how does SD feel about anything?

As for "proselytising" (sic), are you feeling convicted by what Alan Burns is saying by any chance? Who is making you read what he says. Are you a man or mouse. Do you have any self-control whatsoever?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

it's hilarious and sad in equal measure. But this post ,as with many others is wasted on him

Yer dam right there old boy. But it's not going to stop you posting now is it. Self-control issues again?

By the way: How are you getting on with this?

But I can't ignore the evidence I see before my eyes of a person able to walk unaided after being confined to a wheelchair for over two years

sounds like you've been duped Alan, you should be ashamed of yourself for being so gullible.

Any justification coming along soon?

I want to see Walter justify his claim that Alan has been duped and in what way he has been gullible.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

That has to be the least imaginative come-back yet seen in this Forum: well done you!

Oh the irony (which will no doubt be lost on you).

[SusanDoris]

#26670
How does SD feel about it? In fact, how does SD feel about anything?

,Well you tell me!! You said elsewhere you know what my supposed 'wish list' is so let's hear it.

As for "proselytising" (sic), are you feeling convicted by what Alan Burns is saying by any chance? Who is making you read what he says. Are you a man or mouse. Do you have any self-control whatsoever?

Here is your self-righteousness creeping in again.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SotS,

As for "proselytising" (sic)...

Why "sic"?

...are you feeling convicted...

Why "convicted"? Is he a judge or something?

...by what Alan Burns is saying by any chance? Who is making you read what he says. Are you a man or mouse. Do you have any self-control whatsoever?

The point is that this part of this mb is meant to be for discussion and debate. AB has no interest in discussing or debating anything though - he's here to proselytise and that's it. That's why when he posts bad arguments for his faith beliefs and is corrected on them he just ignores the corrections and repeats the bad arguments nonetheless. You did the same thing with your maths bases analogy a while back that crashed and burned, though you've yet to return to your mistake re the meaning of "gullible" I corrected you on a few posts ago. Might have been nice though if you'd had least had the decency to acknowledge the correction.

Oh well.       

[Alan Burns]

That's why when he posts bad arguments for his faith beliefs and is corrected on them .......

I see nothing logically wrong with the posts I make - perhaps it is your personal bias which causes you to find reasons to label them as bad arguments.

[BeRational]

I see nothing logically wrong with the posts I make - perhaps it is your personal bias which causes you to find reasons to label them as bad arguments.

Not so.

Your arguments are logically flawed, and you never address that.

Instead, you just repeat.

Logic is not about opinion.

[Stranger]

I see nothing logically wrong with the posts I make - perhaps it is your personal bias which causes you to find reasons to label them as bad arguments.

No - your posts are riddled in fallacies and contradictions. Perhaps if you actually read and tried to understand the replies you get, instead of just ignoring them and repeating what you've already said, you might learn something.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I see nothing logically wrong with the posts I make - perhaps it is your personal bias which causes you to find reasons to label them as bad arguments.

If I was just calling your arguments logically false and left it at that you could have a point. That’s not what I (and others) do though – what we actually do is to look at your arguments and then explain to you why they’re wrong. The problem here is that you just ignore the explanations and then repeat the mistakes – which suggest to me that it’s your “personal bias” here that’s the problem.

Let’s take just one (of the many) mistakes you make and perhaps you could finally address the explanation for why it’s wrong. Deal? OK then:

You attempt the fine tuning argument for example  – ie, that the likelihood of all the genetic mutations necessary to produce us by chance is so vanishingly remote that there must have been a designer involved, therefore “God”.

This is a bad argument for several reasons, but a significant one is that it’s essentially circular. It requires us to have been the intended outcome from the beginning (ie, a purposive creator a priori), then loops back to conclude that the chances of that end goal happening without a creator are so slim that there must have been – a creator! The problem here is that any other sentient species that happened to emerge anywhere else in the universe could conclude the same thing if they too just assumed that they were the intended outcome – “what are the chances eh?”.

Do you see the problem here? For the fine tuning argument to work you’d need first an argument to demonstrate that our species was always the intention (and only then that the chances of that intended outcome happening by chance are so small as to imply a creator).

And perhaps – just perhaps – once you realise why this argument goes wrong, you might begin to realise that the other fallacies on which you rely – the argument from personal incredulity, the argumetum as consequentiam, the negative proof fallacy, the etc etc are wrong too.

By all means if you feel the need proselytise by saying, “I believe that X is true because that’s my faith” but don’t whatever you do try to make arguments for why it's true because every time you do you run smack into the cold hard logic that falsifies you.

[Walter]

well said blue,

I don't have the patience or the politeness you have .

[Walter]

Yer dam right there old boy. But it's not going to stop you posting now is it. Self-control issues again?

By the way: How are you getting on with this?
Any justification coming along soon?

If you think I should justify myself , why don't you apply the same logic to AB's claim first . My post was a reaction to his claim .

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

If you think I should justify myself , why don't you apply the same logic to AB's claim first . My post was a reaction to his claim .

The truth or otherwise of your claim is not affected by which order I apply the same logic. As there are no shortage of challenges to Alan's posts from others, I decided to start with yours.

Any chance of an answer?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SotS,

Any chance of an answer?

See 26682: any chance of an answer?

[Walter]

The truth or otherwise of your claim is not affected by which order I apply the same logic. As there are no shortage of challenges to Alan's posts from others, I decided to start with yours.

Any chance of an answer?

not until you demonstrate the required capacity to understand the concept.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

If I was just calling your arguments logically false and left it at that you could have a point. That’s not what I (and others) do though – what we actually do is to look at your arguments and then explain to you why they’re wrong. The problem here is that you just ignore the explanations and then repeat the mistakes – which suggest to me that it’s your “personal bias” here that’s the problem.

Let’s take just one (of the many) mistakes you make and perhaps you could finally address the explanation for why it’s wrong. Deal? OK then:

You attempt the fine tuning argument for example  – ie, that the likelihood of all the genetic mutations necessary to produce us by chance is so vanishingly remote that there must have been a designer involved, therefore “God”.

This is a bad argument for several reasons, but a significant one is that it’s essentially circular. It requires us to have been the intended outcome from the beginning (ie, a purposive creator a priori), then loops back to conclude that the chances of that end goal happening without a creator are so slim that there must have been – a creator! The problem here is that any other sentient species that happened to emerge anywhere else in the universe could conclude the same thing if they too just assumed that they were the intended outcome – “what are the chances eh?”.

Do you see the problem here? For the fine tuning argument to work you’d need first an argument to demonstrate that our species was always the intention (and only then that the chances of that intended outcome happening by chance are so small as to imply a creator).

And perhaps – just perhaps – once you realise why this argument goes wrong, you might begin to realise that the other fallacies on which you rely – the argument from personal incredulity, the argumetum as consequentiam, the negative proof fallacy, the etc etc are wrong too.

By all means if you feel the need proselytise by saying, “I believe that X is true because that’s my faith” but don’t whatever you do try to make arguments for why it's true because every time you do you run smack into the cold hard logic that falsifies you.

I think you are getting a bit mixed up with my arguments
The fine tuning argument is based on the cosmological constant, which defines the balance between the rate of expansion of the universe and the force of gravity.  Physicists have determined that this constant needs to be accurate to within on in ten to the power of 120 in order for stars to form.  The counter argument to this extreme fine tuning involves the assumption that there are an almost infinite number of universes and that we live in the one with the required fine tuning.
 
Going back to the example you actually quoted, you seem to be assuming that the formation of life of any sort is a natural phenomenon of this universe.  But the natural, unguided, purposeless forces of nature have no remit to create, sustain and develop life as we know it.  It is quite feasible that no other life exists in this universe, and if it does, I believe it will be there because of God's will.

And evolution theory seems to assume that there will be an almost limitless number of random mutations for the natural selection process to choose from in order to develop the unfathomable complexity of human beings.

[Stranger]

The fine tuning argument is based on the cosmological constant...

Once again, proposing a god doesn't actually explain anything (except in a trite just-so story sort of way) it just replaces an unknown with another unknown: "why this universe?" becomes "why this god?".
 

Going back to the example you actually quoted, you seem to be assuming that the formation of life of any sort is a natural phenomenon of this universe.  But the natural, unguided, purposeless forces of nature have no remit to create, sustain and develop life as we know it.  It is quite feasible that no other life exists in this universe, and if it does, I believe it will be there because of God's will.

And evolution theory seems to assume that there will be an almost limitless number of random mutations for the natural selection process to choose from in order to develop the unfathomable complexity of human beings.

Argument from incredulity - one of your favourite fallacies - with a side order of baseless assertions and personal statements of blind faith.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Once again, proposing a god doesn't actually explain anything (except in a trite just-so story sort of way) it just replaces an unknown with another unknown: "why this universe?" becomes "why this god?".

Really? Why can't you have both questions?

[Stranger]

Really? Why can't you have both questions?

Good point - it's even worse than I described. It increases the unknowns and is based on no evidence or reasoning.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good point - it's even worse than I described. It increases the unknowns and is based on no evidence or reasoning.

Anybody?

[BeRational]

Really? Why can't you have both questions?

The God question is superfluous.

We know we have a universe that needs and explanation.

We do NOT know there is a god to explain.

You would first need to demonstrate the existence of a god, for it to need an explanation.

Really, really simple logic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I think you are getting a bit mixed up with my arguments

I doubt it because the point is that your arguments are logically wrong, but let’s see…

The fine tuning argument is based on the cosmological constant, which defines the balance between the rate of expansion of the universe and the force of gravity.  Physicists have determined that this constant needs to be accurate to within on in ten to the power of 120 in order for stars to form.

That may or may not be true, but even is is what point do you think that makes?

The counter argument to this extreme fine tuning involves the assumption that there are an almost infinite number of universes and that we live in the one with the required fine tuning.

No it isn’t. There doesn’t need to be a “counter-argument”. Yes there may an unfathomably large number of parallel universes and we happen to occupy this one, but the universe we observe requiring very specific conditions to exist tells you only that it requires very specific conditions to exist. So what?   
 

Going back to the example you actually quoted, you seem to be assuming that the formation of life of any sort is a natural phenomenon of this universe.

That is what the evidence suggests rather than an “assumption”, but yes.

But the natural, unguided, purposeless forces of nature have no remit to create, sustain and develop life as we know it.

Relevance?
 

It is quite feasible that no other life exists in this universe, and if it does, I believe it will be there because of God's will.

That’s just and un-argued and un-evidenced expression of your personal faith on the matter. So?

And evolution theory seems to assume that there will be an almost limitless number of random mutations for the natural selection process to choose from in order to develop the unfathomable complexity of human beings.

That’s wrong in several ways.

First, evolutionary theory doesn’t “assume” that at all – it’s been calculated (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html). There is “an almost limitless number” of mutations – and the chances of abiogenesis occurring from those countless simultaneous (ie, not sequential) opportunities is very high.

Second, natural selection doesn’t “choose” anything. Life adapts to its environment, and so requires no supervening decision maker.

Third, you’re just repeating your basic mistake of assuming that “the unfathomable complexity of human beings” was the end game all along. I explained this mistake to you in my past post, but you just ignored it. Why?

Here it is again then. If you want to make an argument for “God” fine tuning is hopeless because it’s circular. You start with a decision maker who’s decided a priori that we should happen, then you look at the chances of us happening randomly, then you conclude that it’s so unlikely that there must be a decision maker - ie, God!

This is why your entire post fails. You can tell me about the cosmological constant all you like but it’s still utterly irrelevant to your fundamental failure of reasoning. Think of a blade of grass on a golf course. Some 400 yards away a golfer tees off, and of all the millions of blades of grass it could have landed on, it happens to land on one of them. Now imagine that the blade of grass thinking, “look how special I am – it was supposed to land on me and it did. What are the chances eh?”

That’s essentially what you’re doing – you’re the blade of grass. If you want to use the unlikelihood of “you” as evidence for a creator god you need first to demonstrate that you were the plan all along.

[Alan Burns]

Think of a blade of grass on a golf course. Some 400 yards away a golfer tees off, and of all the millions of blades of grass it could have landed on, it happens to land on one of them. Now imagine that the blade of grass thinking, “look how special I am – it was supposed to land on me and it did. What are the chances eh?”

Just to put this fine tuning into perspective.  We live in a universe where the initial conditions set by the cosmological constant were just right for the stars to form.  If there were a large number of parallel universes each with a slightly differing rate of expansion, then to make it probable for just one of these universes to form stars, the number of universes needed would be many magnitudes greater that the number of atomic particles in this known universe - considerably more than the blades of grass on a golf course.