XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 07:45:16 -0400, August Rode  wrote:   
   .   
   >On 12/10/2014 10:57 PM, R.Dean wrote:   
   >> On 10/12/2014 9:19 AM, August Rode wrote:   
   >>> On 11/10/2014 11:01 PM, R.Dean wrote:   
   >>>> On 10/11/2014 8:33 AM, August Rode wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>    
   >>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> I think the continued use the term "non-existent" instead of   
   >>>>>>>>>> "non-material" is arrogance, since non-existent does not apply   
   >>>>>>>>>> where   
   >>>>>>>>>> Christians are concerned.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> It doesn't? Surely either something exists or it doesn't, right?   
   >>>>>>>>> Believing that God exists doesn't automatically mean that God   
   >>>>>>>>> exists,   
   >>>>>>>>> right?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Hmm... you don't seem to like answering questions. Is there a   
   >>>>>>> particular   
   >>>>>>> reason for that?   
   >>>>>>  >   
   >>>>>> We've addressed this before. I've never _claimed_ it does.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> That's correct but that isn't an answer to my question. Not even   
   >>>>> remotely. Here it is again in a slightly different form:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>      Does belief in the truth of a claim mean that   
   >>>>>      the claim is true?   
   >>>>  >   
   >>>> Not in and of itself. Regardless of how strong one's believes in the   
   >>>> fidelity of one's mate, that doesn't mean he/she is faithful.   
   >>>> Neither does it mean he/she is not.   
   >>>   
   >>> Absolutely correct. Regardless of how strongly one believes in the   
   >>> existence of God, that doesn't mean that God exists. Nor does it mean   
   >>> that God does not exist. So clearly belief is irrelevant when it comes   
   >>> to existential claims.   
   >>>   
   >>>>>> When you   
   >>>>>> demand natural explanations for everything how is this resolved?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I'll say the same thing to you that I've told others, that I'd accept a   
   >>>>> sound argument in place of natural explanations.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> Forgive me, but I question that statement.   
   >>>   
   >>> I'm sorry but it's true. I have yet to see any argument from a Christian   
   >>> about the truth of some aspect of Christianity that doesn't have a   
   >>> logical fallacy at its heart.   
   >>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> In my view, It's strictly an anti-religious   
   >>>>>>>>>> proclivity.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> In the same way that continuing to claim that God exists is a   
   >>>>>>>>> religious   
   >>>>>>>>> proclivity?   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Who is this in reference to? Who _claims_ that God exist?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Unless I miss my guess, *all* Christians do. There's really not much   
   >>>>>>> reason to be a Christian if God doesn't exist, is there?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Christians _believe_ God exist.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Many of them _claim_ that God exists. However, for those that don't   
   >>>>> make   
   >>>>> such a claim overtly, believing that God exists is identical to   
   >>>>> believing that the claim "God exists" is true. No matter which way you   
   >>>>> cut it, Christians hold a definite position on the claim that God   
   >>>>> exists. You'll have to forgive me if I don't see much difference   
   >>>>> between   
   >>>>> making a claim and believing a claim to be true.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> The point is, and most Christians will tell you that it all comes down   
   >>>> to a matter of faith. You cannot _know_.   
   >>>   
   >>> And yet many have told me that they *do* know.   
   >>  >   
   >> There is only two things anyone can know for certain: death and taxes.   
   >>>   
   >>>>>> They cannot prove he does.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Correct. That doesn't seem to stop many of them from trying, though.   
   >>>>> Some of them brandish the argument from design as if it was intended to   
   >>>>> demonstrate something.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> If one does not have an apriori and overriding adherence to naturalism.   
   >>>> then design could be seen as indirect evidence of a designer.   
   >>>   
   >>> So if one believes that a designer exists, design could be seen as   
   >>> indirect evidence of that designer. And you don't see a problem with   
   >>> that logic? (Hint: assuming your conclusion)   
   >>>   
   >> This is not my line of thought. In fact it's the exact opposite. Actual   
   >> design could be seen as inferring a designer. A designer is not first   
   >> assumed. The cognitive acceptance of design would have to be acknowledge   
   >> first. But even if evidence of design were acknowledged,   
   >> this would not identify the designer. That would be a matter of personal   
   >> opinion, nothing more.   
   >   
   >It is interesting that those who make this argument, without exception,   
   >believed in God before becoming aware of this argument.   
   >   
   >>>> However,   
   >>>> if design is disallowed up front and not allowed to show up for the   
   >>>> game, then it's not even in play.   
   >>>   
   >>> Design is allowed provided that it can be shown to be a cognitive action   
   >>> rather than simply emerging from natural processes.   
   >>>   
   >> It's possible to look as certain objects as designed, but by whom how   
   >> and for what reason, nevertheless, their existence infer design.   
   >> Furthermore, there is no known natural action that could create   
   >> these objects. This is the situation with some old artifacts  discovered   
   >> within the last few decades.   
   >   
   >You're being vague. Perhaps you'd like to cough up some specific examples.   
   >   
   >>> Showing that design   
   >>> in nature has its roots in cognition is the step that lacks a sound   
   >>> argument.   
   >>>   
   >>>> Naturalism may NOT be the better   
   >>>> explanation, nevertheless, it wins, but _only_ through default.   
   >>>   
   >>> Supernaturalism doesn't offer any explanations, does it? If it does, how   
   >>> can such explanations be tested?   
   >>>   
   >> First things first. Indirect evidence of design must be first,   
   >   
   >"Indirect"? Why can't *direct* evidence of design be put forward?   
      
       This gets down to the challenge that has defeated all atheists in several   
   ngs to the point that none of them have been able to give a respectable answer.   
   All they've been able to do is give a very few not at all respectable answers,   
   but most often give dishonest excuses as to why they won't accept the   
   challenge.   
   Dishonest because they COULD NOT meet the challenge even if they wanted to try.   
   The challenge itself is simple and applies to your position now. Try to explain   
   WHAT sort of evidence you think there "should be", WHERE you think it "should   
   be", and WHY you think it "should be" to God's benefit for him to provide us   
   with it if he exists.   
      
   >> which I   
   >> suspect is the reason the very idea of design in nature in verboten by   
   >> atheistic scientist and atheist in general. These people, in my view   
   >> have a strong bias against design consequently, they employ such as   
   >> seems designed and "apparent design"   
   >   
   >There is no "strong bias against design". If something is *actually*   
   >designed, then this is freely admitted.   
      
       Who freely admits it? How do they know?   
      
   >You cannot find someone who will   
   >claim that a toaster is *not* designed. What there is is a strong bias   
   >against unsupported claims of design.   
      
       How are you imagining it should be supported if God does exist, do you have   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)