XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:37:56 -0400, August Rode  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 19:15:26 -0400, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 13:51:50 -0400, August Rode  wrote:   
   >>.   
   >>>On 13/10/2014 11:54 AM, R.Dean wrote:   
   >>>> On 10/13/2014 7:45 AM, 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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> One of the most intriguing mysteries are the giant spherical stones in   
   >>>> Costa Rica. More than 300 balls of various sizes from basketball sizes   
   >>>> to giant sphears eight feet in diameter have been found, most are near   
   >>>> perfectly spherical. They are designed, but clearly not by natural   
   >>>> actions, but who formed them and how primitive people could have created   
   >>>> such near perfect spheres, the purpose they served, and when they were   
   >>>> formed is subject to speculation.   
   >>>> This is not my purpose to suggest that these stones are of divine   
   >>>> origin, magic or from Atlantis or flying saucers.   
   >>>> My point here is, we are able to recognize design with little or no   
   >>>> knowledge of who, when or why: the evidence of design is self evident.   
   >>>   
   >>>Are you saying that you are unable to articulate what it is about these   
   >>>stones that leads to the conclusion that they are designed? 'Self   
   >>>evident' is a dodge, an admission that you don't know *how* you   
   >>>recognize design.   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)