CDZ Three unanswered yet interesting questions pertaining to life

[sealybobo]

As far as your OP, I've already given my answer...random chance. Attempting to assign reason or meaning when we currently have no evidence to support such theories may be popular (I mean Zeus worked for explaining and giving reason to lightening for hundreds of years) but that doesn't make it any more true.

...which requires a HIGH degree of faith. Too much for most folks. You are a deeply faithful believer indeed. Dismissing other faiths doesn't change it.

Okay, maybe I'm missing something...explain how, given our current evidence and knowledge base...that this is deeply faithful. Perhaps I am a devout believer. Perhaps I lack all of the facts. Please, provide reasoning for your argument instead of just stating your conclusion. Where, specifically, am I being faithful and believing where there is no evidence?

I said it several times already, I cannot understand it for you. We don't have "evidence" that life, or the universe for that matter, simply jump started itself into existence. You are demonstrating a high level of faith to believe so. No evidence, no facts but a firm belief = faith. How many times does it need to be explained to you?

The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer. Could be aliens??? Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness,even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Note: Crystallization is one example of how matter can readily self-organize into complex, ordered shapes and structures.

See also: The Story of Everything by Carl Sagan (a must watch), BBC – The Secret Life of Chaos (a must watch), BBC – The Cell: Spark of Life (a must watch), Self-Organization, Evolution, The Watchmaker Analogy, Ultimate 747 gambit, Junkyard Tornado (Hoyle’s fallacy).

Additionally: The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, Evolution of the Eye, Chromosome 2,Bacterial Flagellum, TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims.

“The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life.” – Lawrence Krauss

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” – Charles Darwin

Spiral patterns in Galaxies, Cyclones, Whirlpools, Broccoli, Shells, BZ Reactions, Subatomic Particles, Fractals and Archimedes Diagram. All explainable by natural processes.

Smokescreens are used to cover up things. Spraying the forum with natural shapes and occurrences doesn't prove that's what created nature in the first place.

Fail.

It takes faith to believe what you do.

I think the “it's only a theory” argument regarding evolution is so popular because people confuse the common definition of a “theory” in American pop culture, and the working definition of the word in science. In popular usage, “theory” means a “hunch” or a “guess” — and it’s the opposite of a “fact.” It’s conjecture, a shot in the dark that has just as much chance (and probably even more so) of being wrong as it has of being right. In science, this definition is far more consistent with a “hypothesis” than a theory. Hypotheses are guesses; they are subject to experimentation, and they have no hope of progressing beyond the hypothesis “stage,” unless they are supported by experimentation. Theories are hypotheses that have “graduated”; they are comprehensive explanations of the available hard evidence.Scientific theories are not the opposite of facts; they are actually superior to facts in the hierarchy of terms because they explain facts.And while it is true that scientific theories can never really be “proven,” they can be confirmed through prediction, testing, experimentation and observation — which is exactly what has happened to evolution for the past 150 years.

Consider gravity. What is it? We don’t know. It is a theory, created to explain facts like “When I drop something, it falls down.” Gravity is, in fact, “only a theory,” just like evolution. But that doesn’t seem to make people any less nervous around heights.

 

[sealybobo]

As far as your OP, I've already given my answer...random chance. Attempting to assign reason or meaning when we currently have no evidence to support such theories may be popular (I mean Zeus worked for explaining and giving reason to lightening for hundreds of years) but that doesn't make it any more true.

...which requires a HIGH degree of faith. Too much for most folks. You are a deeply faithful believer indeed. Dismissing other faiths doesn't change it.

Okay, maybe I'm missing something...explain how, given our current evidence and knowledge base...that this is deeply faithful. Perhaps I am a devout believer. Perhaps I lack all of the facts. Please, provide reasoning for your argument instead of just stating your conclusion. Where, specifically, am I being faithful and believing where there is no evidence?

I said it several times already, I cannot understand it for you. We don't have "evidence" that life, or the universe for that matter, simply jump started itself into existence. You are demonstrating a high level of faith to believe so. No evidence, no facts but a firm belief = faith. How many times does it need to be explained to you?

The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer. Could be aliens??? Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness,even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Note: Crystallization is one example of how matter can readily self-organize into complex, ordered shapes and structures.

See also: The Story of Everything by Carl Sagan (a must watch), BBC – The Secret Life of Chaos (a must watch), BBC – The Cell: Spark of Life (a must watch), Self-Organization, Evolution, The Watchmaker Analogy, Ultimate 747 gambit, Junkyard Tornado (Hoyle’s fallacy).

Additionally: The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, Evolution of the Eye, Chromosome 2,Bacterial Flagellum, TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims.

“The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life.” – Lawrence Krauss

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” – Charles Darwin

Spiral patterns in Galaxies, Cyclones, Whirlpools, Broccoli, Shells, BZ Reactions, Subatomic Particles, Fractals and Archimedes Diagram. All explainable by natural processes.

Not sure if you are implying this or not, but above argument is also a no sequitur, since it does not disprove the existence of a creator. We have no way to prove, that a creator did not set up these laws of physics like dominoes, and everything we see is just the result of how those dominoes fall. It's a chicken and egg conversation you two have been having. But what I'm saying if your going to point out a logical fallacy, don't turn around and use one yourself.

It's not on me to prove there isn't a god.

There is no evidence god doesn’t exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.
Argument from ignorance.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims aboutand definitions of a god. [Video]

See also: Putting faith in its place (a must watch), A Lack of Belief in Gods, Critical Thinking.
Why there is no god

 

[sealybobo]

As far as your OP, I've already given my answer...random chance. Attempting to assign reason or meaning when we currently have no evidence to support such theories may be popular (I mean Zeus worked for explaining and giving reason to lightening for hundreds of years) but that doesn't make it any more true.

...which requires a HIGH degree of faith. Too much for most folks. You are a deeply faithful believer indeed. Dismissing other faiths doesn't change it.

Okay, maybe I'm missing something...explain how, given our current evidence and knowledge base...that this is deeply faithful. Perhaps I am a devout believer. Perhaps I lack all of the facts. Please, provide reasoning for your argument instead of just stating your conclusion. Where, specifically, am I being faithful and believing where there is no evidence?

I said it several times already, I cannot understand it for you. We don't have "evidence" that life, or the universe for that matter, simply jump started itself into existence. You are demonstrating a high level of faith to believe so. No evidence, no facts but a firm belief = faith. How many times does it need to be explained to you?

The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer. Could be aliens??? Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness,even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Note: Crystallization is one example of how matter can readily self-organize into complex, ordered shapes and structures.

See also: The Story of Everything by Carl Sagan (a must watch), BBC – The Secret Life of Chaos (a must watch), BBC – The Cell: Spark of Life (a must watch), Self-Organization, Evolution, The Watchmaker Analogy, Ultimate 747 gambit, Junkyard Tornado (Hoyle’s fallacy).

Additionally: The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, Evolution of the Eye, Chromosome 2,Bacterial Flagellum, TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims.

“The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life.” – Lawrence Krauss

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” – Charles Darwin

Spiral patterns in Galaxies, Cyclones, Whirlpools, Broccoli, Shells, BZ Reactions, Subatomic Particles, Fractals and Archimedes Diagram. All explainable by natural processes.

Not sure if you are implying this or not, but above argument is also a no sequitur, since it does not disprove the existence of a creator. We have no way to prove, that a creator did not set up these laws of physics like dominoes, and everything we see is just the result of how those dominoes fall. It's a chicken and egg conversation you two have been having. But what I'm saying if your going to point out a logical fallacy, don't turn around and use one yourself.

Atheists should prove god doesn’t exist.
Russell’s teapot.

The burden of proof is on the person or party asserting the claim; in this case, the theist.

See also: The Dragon in my Garage by Carl Sagan, Invisible Pink Unicorn and Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[sealybobo]

As far as your OP, I've already given my answer...random chance. Attempting to assign reason or meaning when we currently have no evidence to support such theories may be popular (I mean Zeus worked for explaining and giving reason to lightening for hundreds of years) but that doesn't make it any more true.

...which requires a HIGH degree of faith. Too much for most folks. You are a deeply faithful believer indeed. Dismissing other faiths doesn't change it.

Okay, maybe I'm missing something...explain how, given our current evidence and knowledge base...that this is deeply faithful. Perhaps I am a devout believer. Perhaps I lack all of the facts. Please, provide reasoning for your argument instead of just stating your conclusion. Where, specifically, am I being faithful and believing where there is no evidence?

I said it several times already, I cannot understand it for you. We don't have "evidence" that life, or the universe for that matter, simply jump started itself into existence. You are demonstrating a high level of faith to believe so. No evidence, no facts but a firm belief = faith. How many times does it need to be explained to you?

The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer. Could be aliens??? Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness,even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Note: Crystallization is one example of how matter can readily self-organize into complex, ordered shapes and structures.

See also: The Story of Everything by Carl Sagan (a must watch), BBC – The Secret Life of Chaos (a must watch), BBC – The Cell: Spark of Life (a must watch), Self-Organization, Evolution, The Watchmaker Analogy, Ultimate 747 gambit, Junkyard Tornado (Hoyle’s fallacy).

Additionally: The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, Evolution of the Eye, Chromosome 2,Bacterial Flagellum, TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims.

“The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life.” – Lawrence Krauss

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” – Charles Darwin

Spiral patterns in Galaxies, Cyclones, Whirlpools, Broccoli, Shells, BZ Reactions, Subatomic Particles, Fractals and Archimedes Diagram. All explainable by natural processes.

Not sure if you are implying this or not, but above argument is also a no sequitur, since it does not disprove the existence of a creator. We have no way to prove, that a creator did not set up these laws of physics like dominoes, and everything we see is just the result of how those dominoes fall. It's a chicken and egg conversation you two have been having. But what I'm saying if your going to point out a logical fallacy, don't turn around and use one yourself.

You think acceptance of evolution is the same as religious faith. This is where Iceweasel starts asking you “Are you astrongbeliever in evolution?” and “When did you first start believing in evolution?” His point is that anyone who accepts the truth of evolution based on the testimony of expert scientists is relying on “blind faith” in the same way atheists accuse religious people of doing. Just remember Jesus declares that those who “believe without seeing” are “blessed” (contrasting them with“doubting” Thomas, who asked for proof), and1 Peter 8-9warmly declares that those who believe without seeing are “filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls.” LOL

And I reject the claim that the trust smart people put in science and peer-reviewed textbooks is in any way comparable to believing religions. Especially when their conclusions are based onmountains of hard evidencethat are available to anyone who doesn’t willfully choose to ignore it. The scientific community is extremely competitive, but it is also inherently open and transparent — and the modern comforts and advances you enjoy every day are proof that their methods work.

 

[sealybobo]

As far as your OP, I've already given my answer...random chance. Attempting to assign reason or meaning when we currently have no evidence to support such theories may be popular (I mean Zeus worked for explaining and giving reason to lightening for hundreds of years) but that doesn't make it any more true.

...which requires a HIGH degree of faith. Too much for most folks. You are a deeply faithful believer indeed. Dismissing other faiths doesn't change it.

Okay, maybe I'm missing something...explain how, given our current evidence and knowledge base...that this is deeply faithful. Perhaps I am a devout believer. Perhaps I lack all of the facts. Please, provide reasoning for your argument instead of just stating your conclusion. Where, specifically, am I being faithful and believing where there is no evidence?

I said it several times already, I cannot understand it for you. We don't have "evidence" that life, or the universe for that matter, simply jump started itself into existence. You are demonstrating a high level of faith to believe so. No evidence, no facts but a firm belief = faith. How many times does it need to be explained to you?

The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer. Could be aliens??? Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness,even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Note: Crystallization is one example of how matter can readily self-organize into complex, ordered shapes and structures.

See also: The Story of Everything by Carl Sagan (a must watch), BBC – The Secret Life of Chaos (a must watch), BBC – The Cell: Spark of Life (a must watch), Self-Organization, Evolution, The Watchmaker Analogy, Ultimate 747 gambit, Junkyard Tornado (Hoyle’s fallacy).

Additionally: The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, Evolution of the Eye, Chromosome 2,Bacterial Flagellum, TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims.

“The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life.” – Lawrence Krauss

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” – Charles Darwin

Spiral patterns in Galaxies, Cyclones, Whirlpools, Broccoli, Shells, BZ Reactions, Subatomic Particles, Fractals and Archimedes Diagram. All explainable by natural processes.

Not sure if you are implying this or not, but above argument is also a no sequitur, since it does not disprove the existence of a creator. We have no way to prove, that a creator did not set up these laws of physics like dominoes, and everything we see is just the result of how those dominoes fall. It's a chicken and egg conversation you two have been having. But what I'm saying if your going to point out a logical fallacy, don't turn around and use one yourself.

Last thing. There is no way to disprove a god exists. You would have to be a god yourself so you could check behind every star all at the same time in the entire cosmos to see if he is hiding.

And really is the burden of proof on me?

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” – Carl Sagan

 

[sealybobo]

What do you believe? The answer should be you don't know

So you couldn't post any of the evidence that you posited? Now it's about me? LOL.

Yes it's now on you! We admit we don't know. Do you know?

No, you didn't admit you don't know you said the opposite. I said all along I believe in a creator because I can't buy random chance creating everything but don't know any more about him/it. The words are still there, they didn't evolve into something else while sitting on a server somewhere.

Are those the two only options? I can see how if you were presented with those two choices you might pick a God that created everything on purpose rather than think "random chance" did it. Who even knows what that means? Universes get started everyday in the cosmos.

I think infinite universes have always existed and will always exist. We live in reality. Why are there humans and moons and Suns? Who knows. That's just what comes out of stars when they explode. Takes about 10 billion years for life to start after a universes birth. My hypothesis is based on logic reasoning and evidence. Yours is based on ignorance. So's mine but yours is wishful thinking. And your side had to lie and claim he visited. Even you admit that

What did God do trillions of years before our universe?

Can God travel beyond our universe

Funny you don't need to know who created God. I got news for you. The universe is eternal. No need for a God.

You forgot (again) to support any of your assertions. Asking me questions and calling me ignorant doesn't cut it.

I've given you tons of evidence but I'm sure you will poo poo it all

The universe is fine-tuned for life.

The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both spaceand time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix ofanthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simplyseem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them. We cannot prove that all otherpossible forms of life would be infeasible with a different set of conditions or constants because the only universe that we can observe is the one we occupy. Indeed, modelling[2] suggests star formation (a necessary precursor to our form of biology) may be viable under a number of different universal conditions.

Without actual proof of creation, naturalistic explanations for the properties of this universe cannot be wholly ruled out. It is possible an infinity of universes exist, all with different conditions and forms of life. The fact that our particular universe has the physical constants we observe may be no more to the point than the fact a hand of cards, dealt from a shuffled deck, is the one a hypothetical player holds. Though the chances of any one universe being hospitable to life might be low, the conditional probability of a form of life observing a set of constants suitable to it is exactly unity. That is to say, every possible universe would ‘appear’ fine-tuned to the form of life it harbors, while all those inhospitable universes would never be observed by life at all.

 

[Iceweasel]

...which requires a HIGH degree of faith. Too much for most folks. You are a deeply faithful believer indeed. Dismissing other faiths doesn't change it.

Okay, maybe I'm missing something...explain how, given our current evidence and knowledge base...that this is deeply faithful. Perhaps I am a devout believer. Perhaps I lack all of the facts. Please, provide reasoning for your argument instead of just stating your conclusion. Where, specifically, am I being faithful and believing where there is no evidence?

I said it several times already, I cannot understand it for you. We don't have "evidence" that life, or the universe for that matter, simply jump started itself into existence. You are demonstrating a high level of faith to believe so. No evidence, no facts but a firm belief = faith. How many times does it need to be explained to you?

The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer. Could be aliens??? Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness,even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Note: Crystallization is one example of how matter can readily self-organize into complex, ordered shapes and structures.

See also: The Story of Everything by Carl Sagan (a must watch), BBC – The Secret Life of Chaos (a must watch), BBC – The Cell: Spark of Life (a must watch), Self-Organization, Evolution, The Watchmaker Analogy, Ultimate 747 gambit, Junkyard Tornado (Hoyle’s fallacy).

Additionally: The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, Evolution of the Eye, Chromosome 2,Bacterial Flagellum, TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims.

“The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life.” – Lawrence Krauss

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” – Charles Darwin

Spiral patterns in Galaxies, Cyclones, Whirlpools, Broccoli, Shells, BZ Reactions, Subatomic Particles, Fractals and Archimedes Diagram. All explainable by natural processes.

Not sure if you are implying this or not, but above argument is also a no sequitur, since it does not disprove the existence of a creator. We have no way to prove, that a creator did not set up these laws of physics like dominoes, and everything we see is just the result of how those dominoes fall. It's a chicken and egg conversation you two have been having. But what I'm saying if your going to point out a logical fallacy, don't turn around and use one yourself.

You think acceptance of evolution is the same as religious faith. This is where Iceweasel starts asking you “Are you astrongbeliever in evolution?” and “When did you first start believing in evolution?” His point is that anyone who accepts the truth of evolution based on the testimony of expert scientists is relying on “blind faith” in the same way atheists accuse religious people of doing. Just remember Jesus declares that those who “believe without seeing” are “blessed” (contrasting them with“doubting” Thomas, who asked for proof), and1 Peter 8-9warmly declares that those who believe without seeing are “filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls.” LOL

And I reject the claim that the trust smart people put in science and peer-reviewed textbooks is in any way comparable to believing religions. Especially when their conclusions are based onmountains of hard evidencethat are available to anyone who doesn’t willfully choose to ignore it. The scientific community is extremely competitive, but it is also inherently open and transparent — and the modern comforts and advances you enjoy every day are proof that their methods work.

I've never said anything that. You are lying and smearing because you can't defend your position. What science have I ignored? What science have you offered to prove a secular cause?

 

[Iceweasel]

So you couldn't post any of the evidence that you posited? Now it's about me? LOL.

Yes it's now on you! We admit we don't know. Do you know?

No, you didn't admit you don't know you said the opposite. I said all along I believe in a creator because I can't buy random chance creating everything but don't know any more about him/it. The words are still there, they didn't evolve into something else while sitting on a server somewhere.

Are those the two only options? I can see how if you were presented with those two choices you might pick a God that created everything on purpose rather than think "random chance" did it. Who even knows what that means? Universes get started everyday in the cosmos.

I think infinite universes have always existed and will always exist. We live in reality. Why are there humans and moons and Suns? Who knows. That's just what comes out of stars when they explode. Takes about 10 billion years for life to start after a universes birth. My hypothesis is based on logic reasoning and evidence. Yours is based on ignorance. So's mine but yours is wishful thinking. And your side had to lie and claim he visited. Even you admit that

What did God do trillions of years before our universe?

Can God travel beyond our universe

Funny you don't need to know who created God. I got news for you. The universe is eternal. No need for a God.

You forgot (again) to support any of your assertions. Asking me questions and calling me ignorant doesn't cut it.

I've given you tons of evidence but I'm sure you will poo poo it all

The universe is fine-tuned for life.

The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both spaceand time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix ofanthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simplyseem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them. We cannot prove that all otherpossible forms of life would be infeasible with a different set of conditions or constants because the only universe that we can observe is the one we occupy. Indeed, modelling[2] suggests star formation (a necessary precursor to our form of biology) may be viable under a number of different universal conditions.

Without actual proof of creation, naturalistic explanations for the properties of this universe cannot be wholly ruled out. It is possible an infinity of universes exist, all with different conditions and forms of life. The fact that our particular universe has the physical constants we observe may be no more to the point than the fact a hand of cards, dealt from a shuffled deck, is the one a hypothetical player holds. Though the chances of any one universe being hospitable to life might be low, the conditional probability of a form of life observing a set of constants suitable to it is exactly unity. That is to say, every possible universe would ‘appear’ fine-tuned to the form of life it harbors, while all those inhospitable universes would never be observed by life at all.

How does that demonstrate a secular cause? You make no sense.

 

[Iceweasel]

As far as your OP, I've already given my answer...random chance. Attempting to assign reason or meaning when we currently have no evidence to support such theories may be popular (I mean Zeus worked for explaining and giving reason to lightening for hundreds of years) but that doesn't make it any more true.

...which requires a HIGH degree of faith. Too much for most folks. You are a deeply faithful believer indeed. Dismissing other faiths doesn't change it.

Okay, maybe I'm missing something...explain how, given our current evidence and knowledge base...that this is deeply faithful. Perhaps I am a devout believer. Perhaps I lack all of the facts. Please, provide reasoning for your argument instead of just stating your conclusion. Where, specifically, am I being faithful and believing where there is no evidence?

I said it several times already, I cannot understand it for you. We don't have "evidence" that life, or the universe for that matter, simply jump started itself into existence. You are demonstrating a high level of faith to believe so. No evidence, no facts but a firm belief = faith. How many times does it need to be explained to you?

The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer. Could be aliens??? Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness,even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Note: Crystallization is one example of how matter can readily self-organize into complex, ordered shapes and structures.

See also: The Story of Everything by Carl Sagan (a must watch), BBC – The Secret Life of Chaos (a must watch), BBC – The Cell: Spark of Life (a must watch), Self-Organization, Evolution, The Watchmaker Analogy, Ultimate 747 gambit, Junkyard Tornado (Hoyle’s fallacy).

Additionally: The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, Evolution of the Eye, Chromosome 2,Bacterial Flagellum, TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims.

“The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life.” – Lawrence Krauss

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” – Charles Darwin

Spiral patterns in Galaxies, Cyclones, Whirlpools, Broccoli, Shells, BZ Reactions, Subatomic Particles, Fractals and Archimedes Diagram. All explainable by natural processes.

Not sure if you are implying this or not, but above argument is also a no sequitur, since it does not disprove the existence of a creator. We have no way to prove, that a creator did not set up these laws of physics like dominoes, and everything we see is just the result of how those dominoes fall. It's a chicken and egg conversation you two have been having. But what I'm saying if your going to point out a logical fallacy, don't turn around and use one yourself.

How I offered a chicken or dog argument? Whatever that is supposed to mean.

 

[sakinago]

...which requires a HIGH degree of faith. Too much for most folks. You are a deeply faithful believer indeed. Dismissing other faiths doesn't change it.

Okay, maybe I'm missing something...explain how, given our current evidence and knowledge base...that this is deeply faithful. Perhaps I am a devout believer. Perhaps I lack all of the facts. Please, provide reasoning for your argument instead of just stating your conclusion. Where, specifically, am I being faithful and believing where there is no evidence?

I said it several times already, I cannot understand it for you. We don't have "evidence" that life, or the universe for that matter, simply jump started itself into existence. You are demonstrating a high level of faith to believe so. No evidence, no facts but a firm belief = faith. How many times does it need to be explained to you?

The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer. Could be aliens??? Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness,even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Note: Crystallization is one example of how matter can readily self-organize into complex, ordered shapes and structures.

See also: The Story of Everything by Carl Sagan (a must watch), BBC – The Secret Life of Chaos (a must watch), BBC – The Cell: Spark of Life (a must watch), Self-Organization, Evolution, The Watchmaker Analogy, Ultimate 747 gambit, Junkyard Tornado (Hoyle’s fallacy).

Additionally: The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, Evolution of the Eye, Chromosome 2,Bacterial Flagellum, TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims.

“The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life.” – Lawrence Krauss

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” – Charles Darwin

Spiral patterns in Galaxies, Cyclones, Whirlpools, Broccoli, Shells, BZ Reactions, Subatomic Particles, Fractals and Archimedes Diagram. All explainable by natural processes.

Not sure if you are implying this or not, but above argument is also a no sequitur, since it does not disprove the existence of a creator. We have no way to prove, that a creator did not set up these laws of physics like dominoes, and everything we see is just the result of how those dominoes fall. It's a chicken and egg conversation you two have been having. But what I'm saying if your going to point out a logical fallacy, don't turn around and use one yourself.

It's not on me to prove there isn't a god.

There is no evidence god doesn’t exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.
Argument from ignorance.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims aboutand definitions of a god. [Video]

See also: Putting faith in its place (a must watch), A Lack of Belief in Gods, Critical Thinking.
Why there is no god

Nope not shifting the burden of proof. Just stating burden of proof either way is going to be hard to come by, thus turning it into a chicken or the egg, for now. I've never asked you to disprove God, what I stated was there's not really anyway to do it. Since your disbelief of God seems to be predicated on the fact that you've tried every religion, and have discovered yourself that they lack reason and logic, If that's good enough for you, then great (that argument is a logical fallacy as well, appeal to authority I believe). That still doesn't mean there isn't one. Now if your in a discussion on whether or not the earth is 5000 or whatever years old or not, now that is a completly different story than whether or not God exist. It's kind of unfair but the god argument gets a, for lack of a better term, a trump card in the form of, if there is a god, it is extra-demential, or outside of the dementions of existence (that means both space and time) as well as all powerful or outside of our perceptions of power and ability. Now that certainly doesn't prove anything to affirmative of gods existence, but anything outside of complete and utter disproof of existence, the affirmative will always be able to come back with "well that was how the creator designed it," in one form or another. If you believe there is no existence of God than that is fine, I will let this discussion continue with you two as long as some form of worth that will be added to the debate. But added worth will run out quite quickly. After all it is a chicken and egg argument.

 

[Iceweasel]

Okay, maybe I'm missing something...explain how, given our current evidence and knowledge base...that this is deeply faithful. Perhaps I am a devout believer. Perhaps I lack all of the facts. Please, provide reasoning for your argument instead of just stating your conclusion. Where, specifically, am I being faithful and believing where there is no evidence?

I said it several times already, I cannot understand it for you. We don't have "evidence" that life, or the universe for that matter, simply jump started itself into existence. You are demonstrating a high level of faith to believe so. No evidence, no facts but a firm belief = faith. How many times does it need to be explained to you?

The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer. Could be aliens??? Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness,even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Note: Crystallization is one example of how matter can readily self-organize into complex, ordered shapes and structures.

See also: The Story of Everything by Carl Sagan (a must watch), BBC – The Secret Life of Chaos (a must watch), BBC – The Cell: Spark of Life (a must watch), Self-Organization, Evolution, The Watchmaker Analogy, Ultimate 747 gambit, Junkyard Tornado (Hoyle’s fallacy).

Additionally: The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, Evolution of the Eye, Chromosome 2,Bacterial Flagellum, TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims.

“The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life.” – Lawrence Krauss

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” – Charles Darwin

Spiral patterns in Galaxies, Cyclones, Whirlpools, Broccoli, Shells, BZ Reactions, Subatomic Particles, Fractals and Archimedes Diagram. All explainable by natural processes.

Not sure if you are implying this or not, but above argument is also a no sequitur, since it does not disprove the existence of a creator. We have no way to prove, that a creator did not set up these laws of physics like dominoes, and everything we see is just the result of how those dominoes fall. It's a chicken and egg conversation you two have been having. But what I'm saying if your going to point out a logical fallacy, don't turn around and use one yourself.

It's not on me to prove there isn't a god.

There is no evidence god doesn’t exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.
Argument from ignorance.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims aboutand definitions of a god. [Video]

See also: Putting faith in its place (a must watch), A Lack of Belief in Gods, Critical Thinking.
Why there is no god

Nope not shifting the burden of proof. Just stating burden of proof either way is going to be hard to come by, thus turning it into a chicken or the egg, for now. I've never asked you to disprove God, what I stated was there's not really anyway to do it. Since your disbelief of God seems to be predicated on the fact that you've tried every religion, and have discovered yourself that they lack reason and logic, If that's good enough for you, then great (that argument is a logical fallacy as well, appeal to authority I believe). That still doesn't mean there isn't one. Now if your in a discussion on whether or not the earth is 5000 or whatever years old or not, now that is a completly different story than whether or not God exist. It's kind of unfair but the god argument gets a, for lack of a better term, a trump card in the form of, if there is a god, it is extra-demential, or outside of the dementions of existence (that means both space and time) as well as all powerful or outside of our perceptions of power and ability. Now that certainly doesn't prove anything to affirmative of gods existence, but anything outside of complete and utter disproof of existence, the affirmative will always be able to come back with "well that was how the creator designed it," in one form or another. If you believe there is no existence of God than that is fine, I will let this discussion continue with you two as long as some form of worth that will be added to the debate. But added worth will run out quite quickly. After all it is a chicken and egg argument.

I asked him to prove a secular cause since that was his statement about science. I said I believe in a god because random chance doesn't seem likely to me.

You would have a point if I said science proves god. I didn't so you don't.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Random chance that life forms on its' own and not only survives but lives on to multiply and change into endless life forms with a drive for survival so intense it can be found in extremely inhospitable places? I can't muster up that level of faith.

Why? Nature is profligate. Can you truly conceive of the vastness of space? Nature spews forth hundreds of millions of potential lives to perpetuate a given species, almost all of which will fail in their purpose and die. You really believe that an individual sperm is given a "special boost" by God? If so, why not just produce a single sperm? Vast hordes of potential lives are produced, vast reaches of space. Nature seems organized specifically for random chance to play out. Produce enough potentialities, and maybe one of them might actualize, whether it's life on a planet or life in a single instance of procreation.

 

[Iceweasel]

Random chance that life forms on its' own and not only survives but lives on to multiply and change into endless life forms with a drive for survival so intense it can be found in extremely inhospitable places? I can't muster up that level of faith.

Why? Nature is profligate. Can you truly conceive of the vastness of space? Nature spews forth hundreds of millions of potential lives to perpetuate a given species, almost all of which will fail in their purpose and die. You really believe that an individual sperm is given a "special boost" by God? If so, why not just produce a single sperm? Vast hordes of potential lives are produced, vast reaches of space. Nature seems organized specifically for random chance to play out. Produce enough potentialities, and maybe one of them might actualize, whether it's life on a planet or life in a single instance of procreation.

You responded to the wrong poster. I didn't make those arguments. I said I don't believe the universe and life happened on their own. Bring me evidence and I'll accept it. Chest thumping isn't evidence.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Consciousness was started by a large, black rectangle. Don't you go to the movies?

 

[Iceweasel]

Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Random chance that life forms on its' own and not only survives but lives on to multiply and change into endless life forms with a drive for survival so intense it can be found in extremely inhospitable places? I can't muster up that level of faith.

Why? Nature is profligate. Can you truly conceive of the vastness of space? Nature spews forth hundreds of millions of potential lives to perpetuate a given species, almost all of which will fail in their purpose and die. You really believe that an individual sperm is given a "special boost" by God? If so, why not just produce a single sperm? Vast hordes of potential lives are produced, vast reaches of space. Nature seems organized specifically for random chance to play out. Produce enough potentialities, and maybe one of them might actualize, whether it's life on a planet or life in a single instance of procreation.

You responded to the wrong poster. I didn't make those arguments. I said I don't believe the universe and life happened on their own. Bring me evidence and I'll accept it. Chest thumping isn't evidence.

"I can't muster up that measure of faith."

You made that argument, no? WTF chest thumping means, I have no idea. If I misinterpreted that statement, say how. What you seemed to be saying is that the mechanism by which life comes into existence cannot be random. My reply stated, quite clearly I thought, that you are not capable of truly comprehending the scale of the universe. How in the name of reason can you see a system which is so wasteful and identify a specific intent behind that process? One sperm amongst 250 million succeeds and you claim it's God which gives that sperm a turbo boost? What evidence is there of that? If God has a specific sperm in mind why produce the other 249+ million sperm? The profligacy of nature seems a much better argument for random chance than for a intervention by a divine entity.

What's even more of a mystery to me is why people who accept things on faith want to argue about them? Faith and reason are antithetical to one another.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Sure there are some smart animals out there, but they do not hold a candle to human intelligence.

The only intelligence we humans can understand is human intelligence. Judging the intelligence of different species by evaluating how closely theirs resembles our own is an exercise in provincial chauvanism.

"We can imagine what it is like to be a cat, but we cannot imagine what it is like for a cat to be a cat."

No other species is sufficiently "intelligent" to destroy millions of its own young and to systematically destroy the habitat necessary for its survival. How intelligent is that?

A ridiculous statement. We are on the verge of creating intelligence greater than our own, but we can't understand animal intelligence? Well I guess that leaves the whole fields of zoology and behavioral psychology moot. And animals eat their own young all the time!!! They have no clue what they do to their own habitat!!! Outside of a handful they cannot purposefully manipulate the environment around them to their advantage. Nor can they hypothetically think.

Hmmn, dunno about that last statement. Dolphins cannot hypothesize? How can you know that? Cetaceans have a different order of intelligence than humans, and I'm not sure that we can quantify or qualify the differences or similarities so easily.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Sure there are some smart animals out there, but they do not hold a candle to human intelligence.

The only intelligence we humans can understand is human intelligence. Judging the intelligence of different species by evaluating how closely theirs resembles our own is an exercise in provincial chauvanism.

"We can imagine what it is like to be a cat, but we cannot imagine what it is like for a cat to be a cat."

No other species is sufficiently "intelligent" to destroy millions of its own young and to systematically destroy the habitat necessary for its survival. How intelligent is that?

A ridiculous statement. We are on the verge of creating intelligence greater than our own, but we can't understand animal intelligence? Well I guess that leaves the whole fields of zoology and behavioral psychology moot. And animals eat their own young all the time!!! They have no clue what they do to their own habitat!!! Outside of a handful they cannot purposefully manipulate the environment around them to their advantage. Nor can they hypothetically think.

I don't know what sort of sci-fi you have been reading, but we aren't even close to creating AI greater than our own. I actually suspect that we won't have that tech until our computing technology becomes some sort of bio-tech hybrid. As we learn and grow the very structure of our brain changes...I don't think that real AI will be able to come to fruition until what we use to build that AI gains the ability to physically change it's base structure as it gains more knowledge.

And we'll never build a computer that can beat a human at chess. Remember that confident statement?

 

[sealybobo]

Yes it's now on you! We admit we don't know. Do you know?

No, you didn't admit you don't know you said the opposite. I said all along I believe in a creator because I can't buy random chance creating everything but don't know any more about him/it. The words are still there, they didn't evolve into something else while sitting on a server somewhere.

Are those the two only options? I can see how if you were presented with those two choices you might pick a God that created everything on purpose rather than think "random chance" did it. Who even knows what that means? Universes get started everyday in the cosmos.

I think infinite universes have always existed and will always exist. We live in reality. Why are there humans and moons and Suns? Who knows. That's just what comes out of stars when they explode. Takes about 10 billion years for life to start after a universes birth. My hypothesis is based on logic reasoning and evidence. Yours is based on ignorance. So's mine but yours is wishful thinking. And your side had to lie and claim he visited. Even you admit that

What did God do trillions of years before our universe?

Can God travel beyond our universe

Funny you don't need to know who created God. I got news for you. The universe is eternal. No need for a God.

You forgot (again) to support any of your assertions. Asking me questions and calling me ignorant doesn't cut it.

I've given you tons of evidence but I'm sure you will poo poo it all

The universe is fine-tuned for life.

The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both spaceand time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix ofanthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simplyseem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them. We cannot prove that all otherpossible forms of life would be infeasible with a different set of conditions or constants because the only universe that we can observe is the one we occupy. Indeed, modelling[2] suggests star formation (a necessary precursor to our form of biology) may be viable under a number of different universal conditions.

Without actual proof of creation, naturalistic explanations for the properties of this universe cannot be wholly ruled out. It is possible an infinity of universes exist, all with different conditions and forms of life. The fact that our particular universe has the physical constants we observe may be no more to the point than the fact a hand of cards, dealt from a shuffled deck, is the one a hypothetical player holds. Though the chances of any one universe being hospitable to life might be low, the conditional probability of a form of life observing a set of constants suitable to it is exactly unity. That is to say, every possible universe would ‘appear’ fine-tuned to the form of life it harbors, while all those inhospitable universes would never be observed by life at all.

How does that demonstrate a secular cause? You make no sense.

You've said such stupid things I can only dump on you mounds of facts and information that tell me why people who talk like you are stupid as fuck. Now you want to go back and nit pick what I cut and pasted? Fuck you. You are just simply full of shit. I'm not going to keep playing this game with you because I've done it before with other retarded theists and in the end, you are going to cling on to your imaginary friend who you can't really define or prove no matter what because we can't disprove god.

That's the proof you have.

a. We can't disprove god
b. You can't imagine all this happened without a god

Congratulations you are a full retard.

 

[sealybobo]

Okay, maybe I'm missing something...explain how, given our current evidence and knowledge base...that this is deeply faithful. Perhaps I am a devout believer. Perhaps I lack all of the facts. Please, provide reasoning for your argument instead of just stating your conclusion. Where, specifically, am I being faithful and believing where there is no evidence?

I said it several times already, I cannot understand it for you. We don't have "evidence" that life, or the universe for that matter, simply jump started itself into existence. You are demonstrating a high level of faith to believe so. No evidence, no facts but a firm belief = faith. How many times does it need to be explained to you?

The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer. Could be aliens??? Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness,even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Note: Crystallization is one example of how matter can readily self-organize into complex, ordered shapes and structures.

See also: The Story of Everything by Carl Sagan (a must watch), BBC – The Secret Life of Chaos (a must watch), BBC – The Cell: Spark of Life (a must watch), Self-Organization, Evolution, The Watchmaker Analogy, Ultimate 747 gambit, Junkyard Tornado (Hoyle’s fallacy).

Additionally: The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, Evolution of the Eye, Chromosome 2,Bacterial Flagellum, TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims.

“The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life.” – Lawrence Krauss

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” – Charles Darwin

Spiral patterns in Galaxies, Cyclones, Whirlpools, Broccoli, Shells, BZ Reactions, Subatomic Particles, Fractals and Archimedes Diagram. All explainable by natural processes.

Not sure if you are implying this or not, but above argument is also a no sequitur, since it does not disprove the existence of a creator. We have no way to prove, that a creator did not set up these laws of physics like dominoes, and everything we see is just the result of how those dominoes fall. It's a chicken and egg conversation you two have been having. But what I'm saying if your going to point out a logical fallacy, don't turn around and use one yourself.

It's not on me to prove there isn't a god.

There is no evidence god doesn’t exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.
Argument from ignorance.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims aboutand definitions of a god. [Video]

See also: Putting faith in its place (a must watch), A Lack of Belief in Gods, Critical Thinking.
Why there is no god

Nope not shifting the burden of proof. Just stating burden of proof either way is going to be hard to come by, thus turning it into a chicken or the egg, for now. I've never asked you to disprove God, what I stated was there's not really anyway to do it. Since your disbelief of God seems to be predicated on the fact that you've tried every religion, and have discovered yourself that they lack reason and logic, If that's good enough for you, then great (that argument is a logical fallacy as well, appeal to authority I believe). That still doesn't mean there isn't one. Now if your in a discussion on whether or not the earth is 5000 or whatever years old or not, now that is a completly different story than whether or not God exist. It's kind of unfair but the god argument gets a, for lack of a better term, a trump card in the form of, if there is a god, it is extra-demential, or outside of the dementions of existence (that means both space and time) as well as all powerful or outside of our perceptions of power and ability. Now that certainly doesn't prove anything to affirmative of gods existence, but anything outside of complete and utter disproof of existence, the affirmative will always be able to come back with "well that was how the creator designed it," in one form or another. If you believe there is no existence of God than that is fine, I will let this discussion continue with you two as long as some form of worth that will be added to the debate. But added worth will run out quite quickly. After all it is a chicken and egg argument.

But I have the answer to the chicken and egg argument. If you knew evolution you would know it too. There was no first adult chicken and there was no first egg. Chickens evolved from another species just like humans. And just like us, if you go back far enough you'll see chickens crawled out of the water too just like we did. So there was no original adult chicken and god didn't poof into existence chicken eggs.



There was no first human and there was no first chicken. Glad I could enlighten you.