Actually, for now at least, I do not feel the need to defend against your rebuffs, (because I believe my argument stands on its own, and because time is precious),
So you aren't actually here for debate, you're here to preach to a choir or accept concessions. That's not the way it works.
but rather to create a new central talking point to be debated, that is birthed from my argument and your argument combined.
That doesn'r bode well. Your first reply and you're going to go off-topic in your own thread? I see this getting admin attention quickly.
And I want to say, I'm glad that you took the time to create some sort of counter-argument to what I presented. Even though you twisted quite a lot.
So you say. But you haven't shown
how I've supposedly twisted your words, you've simply stated that it is so. More bald assertions. To me, it sounds like you're furiously backpedaling becasue you have no argument. I rebut you, and you say "but that wasn't what I meant!"
If I
have misunderstood you, by all means show how. Be specific. I'd much rather argue against your true argument than waste time, but I really don't see how I;ve distorted anything you've said.
But now, let me ask you Ravhin, based on this statement you made.
quote:
Rahvin writes:
Isn't it reasonable, then, to conclude that Atheists might actually mean exactly what they say when they tell you that they don't believe in any god(s) becasue they have not found any objective evidence that would convince them to do so?
Is not the world you see around you, with all it's intricacies, how it works like clock-work, at the very least suggestive of an intelligence, as opposed to a non-intelligence. You know, how if one thing was to change just a tad bit, none of it would work. I mean, as far as coincidences go, from you're angle, you're in a huge one. Something like 1 in a Googelplex. And beyond this mathematical anomaly, there is no sensibility in your belief. With no intelligence, no purpose, you're shutting the door on sensibility, straight out.
You have your reasoning backwards. Let's use an example:
Imagine that you have a deck of 1000 unique cards, and you draw 100 of them at random. What's the chance that the exact sequence of cards you draw would actually be drawn? The probability is so low as to be next to impossible, and given the same deck randomly shuffled you'd likely never ever draw that same sequence even if you spent the rest of your life doing so.
And yet you still drew that sequence. Why? How?
Becasue given a deck and cards being drawn,
some result was inevitable, and every single result was equally improbable.
But your use of probability is even worse, because
we don't know how likely our Universe was. It may be that a universe with exactly these physical laws is the
only possibility, or one of a select set of possible alternatives.
It only gets worse from there. Inherent in your argument is the assumption that our Universe is a "desired" outcome - essentially you're assuming your conclusion (that we are created) in your premise by assuming that we are a desired outcome as opposed to an irrelevant side effect of a universe that happened to be favorable to our form of life. It's circular reasoning.
And let's not forget the basic fact that while you're somewhat correct when you say:
quote:
You know, how if one thing was to change just a tad bit, none of it would work.
you're missing the most important point: If one was to change something just a tad bit, none of it would work
exactly like our Universe. That's not to say it wouldn't "work" at all, jsut that the results would be different. Those results may or may not be favorable to life (let alone our type of life), but again that only matters if you assume that our form of life is a desirable outcome, which forces your premise to contain your conclusion - circular reasoning.
But the largest, most glaring flaw of the "complex Universe" argument:
it's an argument from incredulity.
It boils down to "gee, wow, I am personally amazed at how complex the universe is, and I am incredulous at the idea that this could have arisen without an intelligent agency behind the whole thing."
This is fallacious reasoning. Your personal credulity has no bearing on whether the Universe is designed or not. Merely saying "complexity is the result of design" is not evidence, as
rocks are extremely complex and yet have no designer. Marveling at the extreme improbability of our Universe existing as it does has absolutely no relevance to whether the universe has a designer or not, any more than the improbability of rolling a specific sequence of dice rolls implies the existence of a
luck fairy.
And I'm not saying that's not true, perhaps there's no purpose or sensibility in this Universe, but unlike you, I'm not shutting the door on the distinct possibility that there is.
I'm not shutting the door on anything, Watson75. I don't argue that the existence of a deity is impossible, simply that I have not seen any objective evidence suggesting that a deity
does exist. In the absence of evidence, I have an absence of belief. There may well be "purpose and sensibility" in teh Universe, but until I see
evidence of such, I am forced by objectivity and parsimony to say "It does not appear so."
So let me put the ball back in your court Rahvin.
quote:
Do you believe this reality, this "something" you see around you, is at the very least "suggestive" of an intelligence that may be behind it.
And yes because of the reality in which we exist, this is an extremely legitimate question.
Of course it's a legitimate question. But the answer is likely less than what you'd prefer: the mere existence of the Universe is suggestive of
nothing more than the existence of the Universe. The existence of a deity is simply one possibility with no supporting evidence, no different from the possibility of fairies hiding in a garden.
And that's a yes or no answer. You can't dodge it. I need an answer.
And I have answered it.
I say yes, which, by virtue of that answer, makes me either a deist or agnostic. By doing this, I pave the way for sense, possible purpose, and those darned equations that just don't seem to add up.
Quite to the contrary, it means that you're accepting a
non sequitur argument. That the universe is designed does not follow the fact that the universe is complex. That's not "paving the way for sense," that's maintaining a logically unsound mindset.
If you say "no," that means there's not point in going further.
Really? I thought this was a
debate forum. Once again, you seem more interested in preaching to the choir and accepting meek concessions than actually debating anything. What a shame, becasue it shows that you have no way to argue against my rebuttal.
I will be forced to hold you in disdain (as a personal view), because I just think that would lack any sort of sense or sensibility.
I assure you, I am exceedingly disappointed that someone on the internet may dislike me.
That would mean our minds just operate on entirely different wavelengths. You would be a true atheist, and therein lies the "beef."
As opposed to a "fake" Atheist? And I can see the different wavelengths quite plainly: my mind works exclusively on objectivity and evidence, while yours delights in subjective emotional fancy. I maintain logical consistency, and I have yet to see you make a single argument without multiple fallacies.
I'll give you one more
Do you believe this reality, this "something" you see around you, is at the very least "suggestive" of a flying spaghetti creature that may be behind it.
I'm going to have to say maybe. Spaghetti creatures rock.
Please provide your answer.
It's not
suggestive of a Flying Spaghetti Monster at all. However, the FSM is equally as likely as any other deity for whom there is no objective evidence. That is to say, not likely in teh least, and certainly not worth believing in, but not
impossible.
™ Version 4.2