Drew_2017

[Drew_2017]

I'm a philosophical, not a religious theist. Given the facts of the existence of life and the universe I believe we owe our existence to a Creator commonly referred to as God. I have no opinion about the nature of God other than it would take God to cause the universe and life to exist.

[Hydra009]

What about either matter or life is so inexplicable that the only way we could possibly account for it is that a God came along and poofed it into existence?

Also, are you aware that the God hypothesis was the preferred explanation for all sorts of other things, including disease and mental illness?  I wonder why no one's advancing that particular claim any more.  Oh right, a solid naturalistic explanation.  Who's to say the universe and life won't be subject to the same process - scientific inquiry resulting in a naturalistic explanation supplanting the previously-held supernatural explanation.

[Mr.Obvious]

Welcome to our little band of heathens.

So, you're kind of like deist? Or am I not getting that correctly?

[Mike Cl]

While I totally disagree with you--welcome to this forum.

[Baruch]

I'm a philosophical, not a religious theist. Given the facts of the existence of life and the universe I believe we owe our existence to a Creator commonly referred to as God. I have no opinion about the nature of God other than it would take God to cause the universe and life to exist.

I totally agree with you, and in spite of that ... welcome ;-)

[aitm]

I am not completely opposed to the idea of a universal creator. But not to one that has existed forever, or that gives a fuck about life forms on a speck of dust in a random speck in a vast universe.

[Drew_2017]

What about either matter or life is so inexplicable that the only way we could possibly account for it is that a God came along and poofed it into existence?

Also, are you aware that the God hypothesis was the preferred explanation for all sorts of other things, including disease and mental illness?  I wonder why no one's advancing that particular claim any more.  Oh right, a solid naturalistic explanation.  Who's to say the universe and life won't be subject to the same process - scientific inquiry resulting in a naturalistic explanation supplanting the previously-held supernatural explanation.

I created summary post under Religious discussion the thread present evidence here.

The naturalistic explanations argument doesn't actually hold water. For instance a car can be explained by nothing more than an appeal to natural known laws of physics yet we know cars are designed and caused by personal agents to exist. If the argument held water it would mean a car was caused to exist unintentionally by naturalistic forces that didn't intend a car to exist.

[aitm]

If the argument held water it would mean a car was caused to exist unintentionally by naturalistic forces that didn't intend a car to exist.

If naturalistic "forces" existed that did not "intend"  the car to exist this would suggest that everything that exists was intended to exist. Such was Hydra's point. Disease, deformity, all the ills of the universe thus were intended.

[Hydra009]

The naturalistic explanations argument doesn't actually hold water. For instance a car can be explained by nothing more than an appeal to natural known laws of physics yet we know cars are designed and caused by personal agents to exist. If the argument held water it would mean a car was caused to exist unintentionally by naturalistic forces that didn't intend a car to exist.

Watchmaker argument.  Never seen that before.

I have a running tally of people who have successfully used that argument.  (I'll give you a hint: it's the same number as the number of world wars that Germany has won)

[Baruch]

I created summary post under Religious discussion the thread present evidence here.

The naturalistic explanations argument doesn't actually hold water. For instance a car can be explained by nothing more than an appeal to natural known laws of physics yet we know cars are designed and caused by personal agents to exist. If the argument held water it would mean a car was caused to exist unintentionally by naturalistic forces that didn't intend a car to exist.

Correct ... but materialists don't accept personal agents, even themselves ... they do what they do, "unintentionally by naturalistic forces that didn't intend for a person to exist" ;-))  Reductionism doesn't allow teleology.  And rationalists frequently aren't ... usually rationalism just means agreeing to materialism/reductionism.  I do agree that "intelligent design" is stupid ... because clearly reality isn't intelligent at all ... "stupid design" is a much more accurate term.  Basically reductionism assumes, that all the fancy structures we see, particularly in living things, are implicit in the equations, and if we were smart enough, we could calculate why bacteria have flagellum (rather than engaging in the usual post-facto Darwinian explanation).  Flagellum as a means of escaping predators is such an obviously advantageous adaptation for collective and individual survival (even though not for survival for sex ... bacteria divorce without getting married first) that all bacteria should have them by now, since all the slow-pokes should have gone extinct.  After 4 billion years, bacteria should have evolved Evinrude outboard motors ;-)  Other arguments go ... that reductionism is all we got ... so it can't be anything else.  They even use this if they are super-string theorists.

People here usually argue regarding cause/effect that an "unmoved mover" is unnecessary as an explanation .. that a structured semi-chaotic status-quo is sufficient.  In my case, I dispense with cause/effect arguments entirely.  My view is "shit happens".  People rationalize a fallacious cause/effect on everything.  In Greek terms, the Greeks were optimists that we are in a Cosmos ... in fact we are in Chaos, playing connect-the-dots with semi-random dots.  We impose an imagined order on randomness ... because it is sometimes beneficial to survival, not because of its ontological status (Platonism).

[Baruch]

If naturalistic "forces" existed that did not "intend"  the car to exist this would suggest that everything that exists was intended to exist. Such was Hydra's point. Disease, deformity, all the ills of the universe thus were intended.

The horrible answer is ... if there is universal intent not just individual intent ... that yes, all the ills or mortality are intended, and deterministically too.  While quantum mechanics would say that you have a 50/50 chance of stubbing your toe, so it isn't certain on any particular occasion (experiment) ... the fact that it is allowed at all is part of the malignant nature of reality.

[Sal1981]

If there is a creator of the Universe, he doesn't give a rats ass about our existence.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

I'll save the debate for your other threads, because you seem friendly enough. So for now I will simply bid you welcome, and I hope you stay awhile.

[Drew_2017]

Watchmaker argument.  Never seen that before.

I have a running tally of people who have successfully used that argument.  (I'll give you a hint: it's the same number as the number of world wars that Germany has won)

The counter argument

The naturalistic explanations argument doesn't actually hold water. For instance a car can be explained by nothing more than an appeal to natural known laws of physics yet we know cars are designed and caused by personal agents to exist. If the argument held water it would mean a car was caused to exist unintentionally by naturalistic forces that didn't intend a car to exist.

Isn't a watchmaker argument. It just demonstrates that naturalistic explanations of how something works isn't indicative of whether something was created by design or by unguided forces that unintentionally created something as you imply. Things known to have been created by design have naturalistic explanations...

By the way no theistic argument persuades an atheist...if it did they'd be theists.

[Mike Cl]

The counter argument


By the way no theistic argument persuades an atheist...if it did they'd be theists.

Yeah, I agree.  Why do you think a person is an atheist or a theist??