A challenge for atheist (From Youtube)

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure I can show with a high degree of certainty for example that the cause of “gifts in the Christmas tree is “parents” rather than Santa Clause and the same is true for all the stuff commonly attributed to Santa Clause.

How does that prove that Santa Claus does not exist?

If you whant to make an analogy you would have to provide an alterative expalantion for say the fine tunning of the universe, and show that your explanation is better than “God did it”

That assumes that "god did it" is an acceptable explanation to begin with. Which it, off course, isn't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How does that prove that Santa Claus does not exist?




That assumes that "god did it" is an acceptable explanation to begin with. Which it, off course, isn't.

Well, that is no problem for me. My brain is so special and unique that I only do external sensory experience and that includes seeing as seeing an acceptable explanation. All I do, is to see and act based on seeing. If you do it differently, you are subjective and that is irrational. You have to see as see reason and logic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I pick the fine tuning of the universe,

Which alternative explanation do you offer and why is it better than God?

Again this implies that "god did it" is even an acceptable "explanation" to begin with.
It isn't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We are talking about hypotheticals here.

All I am saying is that you have to consider all alternatives whitin your poll of options, you cant reject miracles by default, and then look for other expalnations

You have to consider all alternatives, which have a speck of evidence going for them.
It is an exercise in futility, inefficiency and waste of energy to contemplate ANY "option" your imagination can come up with.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well provide a scientific paper that concludes that random variation + natural selection = complexity.

If you cant quote such a paper your alternatives are

1 write your own paper because you obviously have secret knowledge that scientist lack

2 apologies for claiming that I made a stupid comment.

Dude..............

No single paper does this. The collective of papers does this.
How complexity arises from simplicity is exactly the kind of stuff that evolution theory addresses.


To give a stupid obvious example here....
Suppose an organism with 100 genes.
A mutation occurs of gene duplication.
Now it has 101 genes.

There you go. A more complex DNA molecule is the result.

 

[leroy]

Dude..............



To give a stupid obvious example here....
Suppose an organism with 100 genes.
A mutation occurs of gene duplication.
Now it has 101 genes.

.

And then suppose that this organism has a deletion, a losses a gene as a consequence.+

So we are back to 100 genes and the average complexity stayed the same.

The point is that both deletions and additions can be positive and be selected by natural selection, your burden proof is to show that somehow “positive additions” are more common than negative ones (this would produce an trend towards increase complexity)

Now who is ready for 100+ post from @TagliatelliMonster avoiding his burden proof at all cost ?

 

[leroy]

This is part of basic biology. Part of what can happen in mutations is genes folding and duplication. This happens and new information is formed. It happens in evolution, which adds complexity.

Sure but sometimes mutations benefitial mutations “reduce” complexity for example a deletion could be positive.

Your burden is to show mutations + natural selection tend to increase the average complexity in the long term

 

[leroy]

Sure we can reject miracles by default. Miracles are things that - by definition - can't happen:

- miracles are things that violate the laws of nature.

- the laws of nature are descriptive: they're derived from what actually happens in reality.

- this means that anything that violates the laws of nature is not part of "what actually happens in reality"... i.e. it doesn't happen.

Thatis just a semantic game. You are just playing word games.

 

[leroy]

I note, since this is not my first rodeo, that you defend the principle of the claim, yet offer nothing in the way of objective evidence for anything specific. I cannot help but infer something from that. Why not cite what you think is the most solidly evidenced miracle, and why, straight off the bat?

I would say that the best argument for God is the Fine Tunning argument , are you familiar with it? Or would you want me to expand on it?

(I am talking about WLC version of the argument)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thatis just a semantic game. You are just playing word games.

Let me play one with you. God has told me that you have to follow me. And you know what happens when you don't obey God.
The certainty in that is the same as all other claims of knowing what God wants.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would say that the best argument for God is the Fine Tunning argument , are you familiar with it? Or would you want me to expand on it?

(I am talking about WLC version of the argument)

Yeah, I doubt he paid much attention when doing Rene Descartes. So no. I can do skepticism and he can do it differently, but the limits of rationalism and indeed also Kant doesn't seem to be his strong side.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thatis just a semantic game. You are just playing word games.

Sounds like you're conceding that I'm correct but trying to downplay it.

If you mean something else by "miracle," by all means share what you mean when you use the term.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And then suppose that this organism has a deletion, a losses a gene as a consequence.+

So we are back to 100 genes and the average complexity stayed the same.

The point is that both deletions and additions can be positive and be selected by natural selection, your burden proof is to show that somehow “positive additions” are more common than negative ones (this would produce an trend towards increase complexity)

Now who is ready for 100+ post from @TagliatelliMonster avoiding his burden proof at all cost ?

It was just a stupid obvious example of one of the ways in which complexity arises.

There's other ways as well, which don't require an increase of size. In fact, decreases in size can also result in larger complexity, if the "interconnection" between them is larger then before. Your ID heroes refer to such as "irreducible complexity" at times.

Again, how simple becomes complex is exactly one of the things evolution theory addresses.

This was made clear to you by both myself as well as several other posters over a year ago.

Clearly, and as usual, it went in one ear and out the other.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your burden is to show mutations + natural selection tend to increase the average complexity in the long term

Every genetic algorithm ever implemented.

Or actual biological experiments.
Like how e coli evolved new metabolic pathways (making it "more complex") to grow on a new foodsource where it wasn't able to grow on before.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thatis just a semantic game. You are just playing word games.

It's just taking the meaning of the words to there logical conclusion. If you consider that "semantic games" then so be it. Doesn't take away from the point though.

A "miracle" is usually defined as something that violates the laws of nature.
Another word for something that does that, is magic.

And when in context of physical reality, we speak of "impossible", then what we mean is "something that violates the laws of nature".

So all this together results in the conclusion that miracles are impossible things that happen anyway.
Aka, magic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would say that the best argument for God is the Fine Tunning argument , are you familiar with it?

Everyone with a shred of experience in conversing with apologists, is familiar with that fallacious drivel.
One of the many PRATTs they like to use.

Or would you want me to expand on it?

If you must. Not really seeing the point though. It wasn't convincing years ago, it's not going to be convincing now either.

 

[setarcos]

May I ask what you think of all claims concerning miracles coming from religions different from yours?

From a Christian point of view, all miracles come from God. Miracles being defined as suspensions or manipulations of the known natural laws...from our perspective. Our perspective is skewed towards finite understanding of course. From a monotheistic point of view, there is no "Laws" other than Gods. So miracles would be seen to be natural to the laws of God.

Do you accept that Mohammed flew on a winged horse organized by God as shuttle service to Heaven?

Not familiar. However, organized by God the possibility would have to stand in the absence of evidence to the contrary unless it contradicts the Christian tenets. Christian scriptures indicate that the ability to perform all manner of what we might deem miracles - Out of ignorance or other factors - were gifted to many creatures. Not all of them Christian. Lucifer being one of them.
All else being equal, in the absence of evidence the person of faith must or should remain loyal to the tenets of their faith unless that faith is shown to be in error. God help those in need of abandoning their faith due to its recognized errors. Not an easy task.

I know Christians who believe only a fraction, if any, of miracles are true. For God does not need miracles, on account of His infinite foresight.

As I've indicated....only from our perspective and limited knowledge of reality are these things called miracles. Gods will is done and because we are finite creatures, what has been done may be seen by us as a miracle.
To say God has infinite foresight is a bit misleading. The entirety of the creative act was done instantly. God exists simultaneously in every moment of the creative act. There is no foresight in God since the entirety of creation...even its temporality is present to God.
As far as miracles are concerned, God has no need of miracles. That is true. However due to the finite nature of his creation miracles may be a natural product of Gods utility for us.

What do you like: the origins of the universe? morality? Piece of cake. It is so easy to provide naturalistic alternatives to that, that it is almost embarrassing.

Geeze, this statement seems overly harsh and dismissive. And I might add arguable that most past and contemporary scientific giants would consider these things far from easy and a "piece" of cake. Perhaps I can discuss this further in another post with you.
What's your take on morality anyway?
And before you start spouting off about no evidence this and that, keep in mind my above explanations were from a Christian perspective on reality and not meant as a defense of the source of that perspectives existence in reality. The Answers to your statements were given under the Christian perspective only.

 

[leroy]

Sounds like you're conceding that I'm correct but trying to downplay it.

If you mean something else by "miracle," by all means share what you mean when you use the term.

You are just defining miracles as “something that can’t happen” ……… if Jesus resurrected you wouldn’t label it as a “miracle” but the implications and meaning would be the same (you just would call them differently)

 

[leroy]

It was just a stupid obvious example of one of the ways in which complexity arises.

There's other ways as well, which don't require an increase of size. In fact, decreases in size can also result in larger complexity, if the "interconnection" between them is larger then before. Your ID heroes refer to such as "irreducible complexity" at times.

Again, how simple becomes complex is exactly one of the things evolution theory addresses.

This was made clear to you by both myself as well as several other posters over a year ago.

Clearly, and as usual, it went in one ear and out the other.

Post 1

And you are still avoiding your burden proof

Yes I grant that complexity can increase and that there are many ways to do it, but complexity can also decrease, so your burden proof is to show that increase complexity is more likely (and therefore it will become the predominant trend)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are just defining miracles as “something that can’t happen”

Not just me, but again:

If you mean something else by "miracle," by all means share what you mean when you use the term.

……… if Jesus resurrected you wouldn’t label it as a “miracle” but the implications and meaning would be the same (you just would call them differently)

That's right: if Jesus's resurrection had actually happened, it would be natural... even if God did it through powers that are unknown to us.