Page 20 of 30 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 293

Thread: Common theist argument: "You know, I used to be an atheist myself..."

  1. Top | #191
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    14,353
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    38,853
    Rep Power
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    You need to go back and read Paley's argument again if you think it implies that only a human can design something with form and function.
    At one point, yes, it does. Not for long, but for a bit, there, that is the implication, and it's an important one.
    It argues that we know the watch is an artifact because it is nothing like what we find in Nature. So that requires that form and function, thus design, is limited to man.
    Watch =/= Nature.
    Watch == Artifact.

    Then, with no change in the watch OR in nature, we suddenly resolve that the universe IS just like the watch. Suddenly, the universe reflects design.

    Artifact == Watch == Nature.


    Of course, that voids our earlier conclusion that the watch was an artifact based on it being unlike Nature. Which means we can't leverage that now-errant conclusion to determine that Nature is an Artifact. So all in all, it's just a big waste of time, innit?

  2. Top | #192
    Veteran Member skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    4,419
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    17,395
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Worldtraveller View Post
    Really? Based on what?
    Do you mean, when I said the conclusion that it requires a lot of time (or that life was actually created in the lab)?

    Based on ... it hasn't been done .. yet (making life from non organic elements) the part missing in thought, has to be time (via various processes).
    The full life cycle of a star or even of a giant sequoia has not been created and studied in a lab either but both are pretty damn well understood.

  3. Top | #193
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    15,713
    Archived
    42,293
    Total Posts
    58,006
    Rep Power
    83
    Exactly. God waves hand, makes star. God waves hand, makes sequoia.

    It’s easy to understand. I don’t know why people say science is hard.

  4. Top | #194
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,704
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    1,760
    Rep Power
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    We are not 'made from the earth' though. We are made from plants and water; And plants are made from air, water, and sunlight.

    The fraction of any animal (including humans) that is made from 'earth', even in the broadest sense, is minuscule. The whole 'made from earth' thing is an error that pre-dates the Bible, and stems from the oversimplified 'earth, air, fire, water' system for attempting to understand reality - under that scheme, it is assumed that people are mostly earth, on the reasonable but completely mistaken basis that we are more solid than we are liquid, gas, or flame.

    Humans are made mostly of Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen. All of these enter the biosphere from the atmosphere, or from water; not from soil, rocks, or 'earth'.
    Really, so its not a fact then as according to Atrib? And so ...the remains left from once lived creatures should all really return to the states of gases and sunlight? (you seem to suggest)

    Well of course there's a little more to it than just plain earth dust.

  5. Top | #195
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,704
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    1,760
    Rep Power
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Worldtraveller View Post
    Really? Based on what?
    Do you mean, when I said the conclusion that it requires a lot of time (or that life was actually created in the lab)?

    Based on ... it hasn't been done .. yet (making life from non organic elements) the part missing in thought, has to be time (via various processes).
    The full life cycle of a star or even of a giant sequoia has not been created and studied in a lab either but both are pretty damn well understood.
    Yes, you can certainly see the stars ,in order to be able to deduce or assume from the other types of formations "available" to observe , whether they are thought to be either : early stages of star beginnngs or the latter stages of the star cycles. But thats it, in regards to life requiring plenty of unobserved time!

  6. Top | #196
    Raspberry bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    19,706
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    30,183
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    We are not 'made from the earth' though. We are made from plants and water; And plants are made from air, water, and sunlight.

    The fraction of any animal (including humans) that is made from 'earth', even in the broadest sense, is minuscule. The whole 'made from earth' thing is an error that pre-dates the Bible, and stems from the oversimplified 'earth, air, fire, water' system for attempting to understand reality - under that scheme, it is assumed that people are mostly earth, on the reasonable but completely mistaken basis that we are more solid than we are liquid, gas, or flame.

    Humans are made mostly of Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen. All of these enter the biosphere from the atmosphere, or from water; not from soil, rocks, or 'earth'.
    Really, so its not a fact then as according to Atrib? And so ...the remains left from once lived creatures should all really return to the states of gases and sunlight? (you seem to suggest)
    I suggest nothing. Anything you want to know about my position is either written in my posts, or requires you to ask me. If you get your understanding from your interpretation of whjat you imagine to be hints, then you are just going to be (even more) confused.

    The remains left from once lived creatures are (by the definition of 'remains') the stuff that didn't immediately get eaten by scavengers, or by microorganisms. Mostly these are bone, which is still mostly C O H and N. Eventually, it all gets returned to water and gases, usually via a number of other living things; Fossils are typically minerals that take on the shapes of the tissues that decayed leaving an impression in the sediments that covered them, and are not parts of the dead animal at all.

    Well of course there's a little more to it than just plain earth dust.
    No, there's VASTLY more to it - there's so little "just plain earth dust" as to be practically negligible. Certainly it is deeply wrong to say that 'dust' is a major component of a human being. That's why cremation urns are so much smaller than coffins.

  7. Top | #197
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,704
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    1,760
    Rep Power
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    I suggest nothing. Anything you want to know about my position is either written in my posts, or requires you to ask me. If you get your understanding from your interpretation of whjat you imagine to be hints, then you are just going to be (even more) confused.
    I was expecting you to repsond and clarify to (you seem to suggest) cheers BTW.

    The remains left from once lived creatures are (by the definition of 'remains') the stuff that didn't immediately get eaten by scavengers, or by microorganisms. Mostly these are bone, which is still mostly C O H and N. Eventually, it all gets returned to water and gases, usually via a number of other living things; Fossils are typically minerals that take on the shapes of the tissues that decayed leaving an impression in the sediments that covered them, and are not parts of the dead animal at all.
    I have no dispute with the detailed processes, and of course, Atrib was actually quite correct : "same elements found in nature, it is a fact" . I think we all agree here.


    No, there's VASTLY more to it - there's so little "just plain earth dust" as to be practically negligible. Certainly it is deeply wrong to say that 'dust' is a major component of a human being. That's why cremation urns are so much smaller than coffins.
    Sure , no probs with that. I use earth-dust generally speaking , as some scientists say "we are made from space-dust" (not needing to mention water and other details etc..).

  8. Top | #198
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Layton, UT
    Posts
    990
    Rep Power
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    The full life cycle of a star or even of a giant sequoia has not been created and studied in a lab either but both are pretty damn well understood.
    Yes, you can certainly see the stars ,in order to be able to deduce or assume from the other types of formations "available" to observe , whether they are thought to be either : early stages of star beginnngs or the latter stages of the star cycles. But thats it, in regards to life requiring plenty of unobserved time!
    So your assertion here is that if we can't see it actually happen, despite having a lot of time (maybe 70 years of good scientific experimentation), then there's no good reason to believe it?

    Can you answer this as a yes or no (feel free to elucidate, but I'd like you to be clear)?

  9. Top | #199
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    802
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,601
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Its not a viewpoint that we are made from the same elements found in nature, it is a fact.

    With the Christian belief system the magic is unspoken, and is the lack of explanation about the magical processes that created the creator god.
    That's like believing that little Johnny down the street couldn't possibly have taught himself simple addition and subtraction at age 3, but your own newborn day old baby can solve the gravitational field equations including working out the manifold geometry of spacetime in the presence of complex energy distributions and local singularities. Only several orders of magnitude more ridiculous.
    I meant, taking the viewpoint that "biblically" it says the same thing ... i.e. made from the earth.

    It is absurdly hypocritical to believe that simple self replicating molecules could never arise through natural processes, but that a sophisticated, powerful god just conveniently happens to exist, no explanations needed.
    Hypocritical? So if one reckons likewise, that its absurd that any Creator could have made those molecules, but philosophically or mathematically could however , make a variety of alternative theories, this would be the explanation(s) needed? Naturalistic magic?
    You are babbling again.

    Please go back and read my post again and try to address the point I was making.

    1. Creationists don't believe that simple self-replicating molecules could have formed from undirected natural processes.
    2. Creationists believe that an intelligent, sophisticated, all-powerful god arose somehow from undirected, natural processes.

    Do you see the contradiction here?

  10. Top | #200
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    802
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,601
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post

    It is rather odd that Lion attributes all sorts of magic to this sky critter but then points out that it couldn't make a watch. Only humans have the power to make such things.
    You realise the 'watch' is an analogy right?

    Ipetrich's watch museum would be a monument to design and beauty and creativity and intellectual property. etc.

    You need to go back and read Paley's argument again if you think it implies that only a human can design something with form and function.
    I understand perfectly. You point at something that was obviously designed and created such as watches, statues, etc. to illustrate that something that was designed required a designer. Then take an absurd illogical leap to claim that everything was designed (with absolutely no rational reason to assume such a thing) to prove an 'ultimate super designer'. It is sorta the ultimate god of the gaps argument (the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance) - exactly how life originated is unknown, therefore god.

    I am constantly amused by the fact that theists actually believe that there are absolutely no unknowns... everything that anyone presents as an unknown can be explained as 'the will of god or god's plan', even though that expression explains nothing.
    Not to mention, the watch stands out clearly as an object that was designed by an intelligent entity, in stark contrast to our natural world, the planet, the geology, the rivers, the vegetation etc. which do NOT appear to have been designed by an intelligent entity. Which is why the watch stands out as being different from the natural (non-intelligently-designed) universe we live in. Paley's argument undermines the very point it was built to make.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •