Chance vs Intelligent design

[Heyo]

God is not made.

If everything happened, came about by chance then this sentence is a product of chance.

You seem to be caught up in a black-and-white fallacy. For you it is that either nothing is made or everything, making you unable to differentiate between the two. Things aren't that simple.

 

[Alien826]

Whatever happens is not done by an entity called chance however.
And really it is not known (even if it is believed) that all this universe had any chance of existing through natural causes.

An entity called chance? That's an odd idea. Probably better stated as "in a chancy manner". Pick your own word to replace "chancy" ).

The question of why there is something rather than nothing will probably never be resolved, and it doesn't help to suggest some kind of supernatural cause because that becomes subject to the same question. Given the existence of the universe though, natural causes seem to be doing pretty well as an explanation.

 

[George-ananda]

What that quote means is that the proposition needs to be verifiable. This is done by predictability of data. Such data, if it exists, is then evidence for the proposition. Data that does not match those predictions, would be evidence against the proposition.



Claims aren't evidence. Claims require evidence.

Proposition: Ghosts exist

Evidence: John claims to have seen a ghost (hence supports the proposition that ghosts exist).

ev·i·dence
NOUN

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

And yes, evidence can be strong or weak but it's still evidence.

 

[George-ananda]

Then you should believe in bigfoot and alien abduction.

Wrong. I can subjectively judge the evidence too weak to convince me.

BTW: I do happen to believe in Bigfoot and Alien Abductions because I judge the evidence sufficiently convincing. And I don't believe in Santa Claus because I don't find the evidence sufficiently convincing.

That's how intelligent reasoning works.

 

[George-ananda]

Take the thousands of claims of alien abduction.
There is an explanation for why so many people claim and believe it.
That explanation need not be that it actually occurred.

Whatever explanation is proposed, is going to have to be based on evidence.
And that evidence is not going to be the claims themselves.

A sufficient quantity, quality and consistency of claims even without physical evidence can affect my view of reality. What don't you comprehend.

I am not doing science. I am addressing the question 'all things considered what is most reasonable for me to believe'.


I don't think you will ever grasp that difference.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes, it was a typo. Sorry.





In other words, you don't consider arguments ad populum to be fallacious.
"many people believe / claim it, therefor it's true or likely true".

Wrong. I also judge the quantity, quality and consistency of the claims. I might believe some things and not others.

Sounds like I'm just using normal human reasoning skills.

 

[Nakosis]

Could be, but chance is not an entity that can do anything.

A rock hurdling through space that collides with a planet can do a lot of damage without being an entity.

 

[cladking]

The question of why there is something rather than nothing will probably never be resolved, and it doesn't help to suggest some kind of supernatural cause because that becomes subject to the same question. Given the existence of the universe though, natural causes seem to be doing pretty well as an explanation.

I strongly disagree.

there is every chance we will learn why something exists. Most everything that exists can already be put into some sort of context no matter how wrong we are except for time itself. Perhaps there is simply a relationship between time and energy. Perhaps this is a natural relationship and possibly it's the means by which God operates but we have no way to know at this time because our ignorance of most things is near perfect. How can unknown natural causes be said to be doing pretty well as an explanation?? We are merely seeing what we expect and believe. Since everything is explained by our beliefs we have a greatly inflated estimation of what we actually do know.

We will never be able to prove or disprove the existence of things you believe are "supernatural" or travel back in time but we can certainly come to format how anything came into existence given sufficient time to invent hypothesis and experiment. Some questions are far beyond reductionistic science but I doubt that applies to this question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Proposition: Ghosts exist

Evidence: John claims to have seen a ghost (hence supports the proposition that ghosts exist).

Read that sentence out loud. Note the word "john CLAIMS"


Claims require evidence. Claims are not evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A sufficient quantity, quality and consistency of claims even without physical evidence can affect my view of reality. What don't you comprehend.

I comprehend what you are saying.
I'm just informing you that it isn't rational.

What you are doing is just believe the claims of people.
There's no evidence there.

I don't think you will ever grasp that difference.

I grasp the difference.
You don't think arguments ad populum are fallacious.

 

[Brian2]

I already told you it is BS.
You yourself acknowledge I wouldn't agree with that.

You willingly argue a strawman.

What do you expect as a response when you do that?

It's not a strawman just because I know you will not accept what I say.
But now I know you have no good response and so you accuse me of arguing a strawman.

 

[Brian2]

Now all you need to do is support that this "first cause" is a god.
Good luck with that.


I'm not saying anything. I'm responding to claims that are just bare assertions with no evidence.

You are saying a lot for someone who isn't saying anything. I guess you don't want to make any bare assertions of your own about things you have no evidence for.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's not a strawman

It is a strawman because you are pretending I make that claim, while I don't.

But now I know you have no good response and so you accuse me of arguing a strawman.

I don't need a response.
I have no need to defend claims that I'm not making.

When presented with a strawman, all I need to do is point it out.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are saying a lot for someone who isn't saying anything. I guess you don't want to make any bare assertions of your own about things you have no evidence for.

Yeah, I actively try to not make bare claims with no evidence.

You should try it sometime.

 

[Brian2]

If that is your way of saying that the origins of the universe are unknown then you are correct.

That does not make it valid for you to just make up gods for it.

Having said that, natural causes are known to originate things. Gods aren't.
So at least that makes it a valid contender.

And also, let us not forget, just about EVERYTHING that was claimed to come from gods, whenever studied and the origins were demonstrated, it turned out to be not gods but just natural causes.

So the track record of historical claims to explain phenomenon in the universe, isn't exactly on your side either.

There's a loooong track record of natural causes explaining phenomenon in the universe in demonstrable manner.
The track record of supernatural causes explaining phenomenon in demonstrable manner is ZERO

Science has not eliminated the need for God anywhere as the originator of things, and this goes double for those areas that God claims to have done, create everything and give life.
At least a powerful being has a chance of originating things but chance alone has no chance.

 

[Brian2]

Good thing then that nobody claims that "chance" does anything.
That's just your strawman.

Yes and no.
If there was no designer than all there is is chance.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, if there was no intent involved when the universe began to expand, break symmetry, and evolve according to the parameters established then, then whatever followed was not intended. That's tautologically true.

Even the parameters were not intended and the expansion and etc etc.
Who cares. We live our little unintended lives and disappear and so what.
But a creator has shown He exists however.

The narrative should not and need not be any more detailed than is necessary to account for what we find. In a crime investigation, we don't conclude that the perp was a smoker until some evidence that he was is found, like a cigarette butt with his DNA on it at the crime scene. The narrative is fitted to the evidence. When science needs a god, it will add one. Shall we call it a smoker, too? Not until we need that to account for some observation. That's what parsimony means in this context.

We need a God to account for the parameters and the order and design and life and all those things we have in us that are not accountable any other way and ................ the fulfilled prophecy.
Why cut out God? Ahhh, because you're an empiricist and want to explain everything empirically so you use the rules of science and ignore evidence that points to a God but which cannot be tested empirically. In fact it is not even evidence for you.
That's fine, so we talk to each other and are always at odds and always have to agree to disagree.
Our world views are different from the get go. You have a faith that empirical thinking is the way to get there and I look at all the evidence without automatically dismissing it.

Guessing is not what I'm referring to. Demonstrably accurate predictions are. We're expecting a comet to appear in a few weeks in the northeast horizon just before sunrise. What do you think the odds are that it won't be there? Naked-eye comet visits Earth for 1st time since Neanderthals in 2023 | Space

The prediction of the time of the Messiah's coming and what He would do is there in Daniel and other places and it is not necessarily there so that everyone would know exactly when it would happen and what exactly He would do (even though some knew it was about the right time and what He would do) but it was there mainly so that people could look at it afterwards and see that it had been predicted.

 

[Brian2]

You seem to be caught up in a black-and-white fallacy. For you it is that either nothing is made or everything, making you unable to differentiate between the two. Things aren't that simple.

Some things are that simple, esp for people who believe God created everything.
How do you see it?

 

[Brian2]

An entity called chance? That's an odd idea. Probably better stated as "in a chancy manner". Pick your own word to replace "chancy" ).

The question of why there is something rather than nothing will probably never be resolved, and it doesn't help to suggest some kind of supernatural cause because that becomes subject to the same question. Given the existence of the universe though, natural causes seem to be doing pretty well as an explanation.

A first cause is a first cause. We can't go back indefinitely to earlier and earlier causes, that would mean we would have to go back forever and if we did that we could not be at this point in time yet. Forever is a very long time.
I don't think that natural causes has an explanation. But there are a lot of educated guesses all competing for the chance to be the winner.
Why do you think that natural causes seem to be doing pretty well.
Actually I see it as one of those questions that science can never answer for sure.

 

[Brian2]

A rock hurdling through space that collides with a planet can do a lot of damage without being an entity.

My wife can do a lot of damage and loves to do it when we are pulling things down. She is like a rock hurtling through space. She is not so good at the building side of things however. And if I had 1000 wives that would probably make the building side 1000 times worse without a lot of luck.