Death

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, is there any cogent argument for design?   There are pure assertions, it is so, because I say so, and various God of the gaps arguments, which are also empty.   Anything else?

Although there has been a bit of a neo teleological revival with the idea of simulated universes by folks such as Greene, Bostrom, Musk and perhaps most famously Neil de Grasse Tyson so how one can say it has been thoroughly discredited.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I was going to mention Dawkins, Vlad, but I suspected that might be too stressful for you this early in the day.

Oops!

If you were that concerned about my stress levels you would have refrained from posting at all.

[wigginhall]

Although there has been a bit of a neo teleological revival with the idea of simulated universes by folks such as Greene, Bostrom, Musk and perhaps most famously Neil de Grasse Tyson so how one can say it has been thoroughly discredited.

So you are saying that these people are arguing for theism?

[Stranger]

Although there has been a bit of a neo teleological revival with the idea of simulated universes by folks such as Greene, Bostrom, Musk and perhaps most famously Neil de Grasse Tyson so how one can say it has been thoroughly discredited.

  .-'---`-.
,'          `.
|             \
|              \
\           _  \
,\  _    ,'-,/-)\
( * \ \,' ,' ,'-)
 `._,)     -',-')
   \/         ''/
    )        / /
   /       ,'-'

[torridon]

Nice 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you are saying that these people are arguing for theism?

They may not be doing so intentionally but they are making a teleological point which theists have been making for centuries.

To put it another way, the theistic elements they might dismiss would not add up to a dismissal of theism.

PZ Myers would accept that what they are saying is an argument from design based on the ability to do it.

[wigginhall]

They may not be doing so intentionally but they are making a teleological point which theists have been making for centuries.

To put it another way, the theistic elements they might dismiss would not add up to a dismissal of theism.

PZ Myers would accept that what they are saying is an argument from design based on the ability to do it.

That sounds like Sriram, who seems to say that because humans can make things, therefore we were made.   I can't see how an argument about intelligent aliens is any different.   Aliens are not supernatural.

[Stranger]

Nice 

This forum badly needs a facepalm emoji...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That sounds like Sriram, who seems to say that because humans can make things, therefore we were made.   I can't see how an argument about intelligent aliens is any different.   Aliens are not supernatural.

Well, I would say you are wrong as per normal since I with the great NDG Tyson, N Bostrom et al are saying our universe could have been made.....not have been made.....and I am sure they will have put good odds on that.

I don't trust you and your ilk with any description of supernatural or, for that matter natural extra terrestrials may not be supernatural. You cannot say the same for extra universals who by definition are beyond nature.

It seems that rank and file antitheists have yet to catch up with....well just about everyone.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This forum badly needs a facepalm emoji...

You guys certainly need a way to streamline your volumous non arguments ha ha.

[Stranger]

It seems that rank and file antitheists have yet to catch up with....well just about everyone.

Just keep telling yourself that. Your desperate straw-clutching and promiscuous attitude to concepts of 'god(s)' regarding this issue have been done to death. I have no idea why you keep bringing it up, you just make a fool of yourself...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just keep telling yourself that. Your desperate straw-clutching and promiscuous attitude to concepts of 'god(s)' regarding this issue have been done to death. I have no idea why you keep bringing it up, you just make a fool of yourself...

Keep redefining the meaning of the word natural and supernatural to serve atheism. You have been particularly active in this field since NDG Tysons suggestion.
As I have said, if you accept the reasonableness of simulated universe.....any antitheism remaining does not amount to effective anti theism.

 The only one of your ilk to realise the threat of statements to antitheism is PZ Myers.

Your attempts to eliminate the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe who is not part of it from its centuries old place in the stock of theology is pitiable.

[wigginhall]

Vlad, who are you calling an anti-theist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad, who are you calling an anti-theist?

Whosoeverthe cap fits.

[Shaker]

Vlad, who are you calling an anti-theist?

Just about everybody else, apparently.

[wigginhall]

Whosoeverthe cap fits.

Stop trolling.

[Dicky Underpants]

There is no depth of loathing low enough to express how much I loathe these interview-type questions. Five years' time? How the fuck do I know? Perhaps by then I'll have got the money together for the gender transition and I'll be living in Uttoxeter called Barbara. How do I know?

Lorksalorky, I'm right with you on this one. It seemed to get trotted out to whatever menial job interview I went to in the '90s, when I was very down at heel. I wish I'd had the courage to say:" Haven't a bloody clue; I just want a fucking job to earn some fucking money!"

[Dicky Underpants]

I don't trust you and your ilk with any description of supernatural or, for that matter natural extra terrestrials may not be supernatural. You cannot say the same for extra universals who by definition are beyond nature.

It seems that rank and file antitheists have yet to catch up with....well just about everyone.

Not sure what wiggi's 'ilk' is supposed to be, other than, in this case, a casual instance of your supercilious generalisations. Nor do I know what you mean by "extra universals". Are you talking about Platonic Forms? Or simply whatever may be 'beyond the universe' (which by nature we can't know anything about anyway)? No one has got beyond Thomas Henry Huxley on this matter.

Even if 'aliens' came from another dimension (as has been suggested by certain NewAge enthusiasts) it would still not make them 'supernatural'. Can you provide all of us with a working definition (my ilk and any other ilk, that is, including the theistic ilks).

[Sriram]

Actually...how would we differentiate between extra terrestrial beings and so called 'supernatural' beings.....since both of them may not follow 'Natural' laws, as we understand them?! 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually...how would we differentiate between extra terrestrial beings and so called 'supernatural' beings.....since both of them may not follow 'Natural' laws, as we understand them?!

Agreed. They would be both beyond nature I.e. Out of its remit and above it having created it and of course there is the question of alienness. Is a work of art alien to the artist?

By ignoring plain meanings the ball is in Dicky's court.

[Shaker]

Actually...how would we differentiate between extra terrestrial beings and so called 'supernatural' beings.....since both of them may not follow 'Natural' laws, as we understand them?!

Why wouldn't extraterrestrials follow the laws of physics? This seems a rather threadbare attempt to crowbar the supernatural into your "argument." (But then, it always is). ET beings may well have a different biochemical basis but they would still be built out of the same sort of 'stuff' of the universe that we're familiar with and thus subject to the same laws.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why wouldn't extraterrestrials follow the laws of physics? This seems a rather threadbare attempt to crowbar the supernatural into your "argument." (But then, it always is). ET beings may well have a different biochemical basis but they would still be built out of the same sort of 'stuff' of the universe that we're familiar with and thus subject to the same laws.

If an intelligent creator who is beyond the universe and not part of it.......is natural you should be able to direct us to it since all natural things can be observed or investigated.

You don't seem focussed on the conversation.

If a being is beyond and above nature then it's definitionally supernatural and if it is beyond the universe we cannot guarantee that it is subject to what we know as the laws of physics.

[torridon]

If an intelligent creator who is beyond the universe and not part of it.......is natural you should be able to direct us to it since all natural things can be observed or investigated.

You don't seem focussed on the conversation.

If a being is beyond and above nature then it's definitionally supernatural and if it is beyond the universe we cannot guarantee that it is subject to what we know as the laws of physics.

1. Something that is 'beyond' the universe would also be beyond knowing, beyond understanding, beyond all evidence; if it is impossible to detect such a thing how can we justify the contention that it exists ?

2. The properties "intelligent" and "creator", suggest this 'being' is in fact subject to natural laws anyway.

Something of having a cake and eating it going on here.

[Shaker]

If an intelligent creator who is beyond the universe and not part of it.......is natural you should be able to direct us to it since all natural things can be observed or investigated.

You don't seem focussed on the conversation.

If a being is beyond and above nature then it's definitionally supernatural and if it is beyond the universe we cannot guarantee that it is subject to what we know as the laws of physics.

Who mentioned a supernatural intelligent creator? Not me - you. I have no need of that hypothesis. I responded to the absurd point about extraterrestrials being supernatural and creating nature, which is arrant twaddle. (#244: "[extraterrestrials would be] beyond nature I.e. Out of its remit and above it having created it" - desperate stuff indeed. Do you even know what extraterrestrial actually means? Not on this showing, you don't.).

Seems like it's you who needs to focus on the conversation.

[Sriram]

1. Something that is 'beyond' the universe would also be beyond knowing, beyond understanding, beyond all evidence; if it is impossible to detect such a thing how can we justify the contention that it exists ?

2. The properties "intelligent" and "creator", suggest this 'being' is in fact subject to natural laws anyway.

Something of having a cake and eating it going on here.

Well...something that is beyond this universe would be beyond our understanding.....ok.  That is how people normally define God in any case.

But why should it be subject to natural laws?