XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: Dean"@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/13/2014 1:51 PM, 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.   
    >   
   These are hard granite stones which are near perfectly spherical, up to   
   8 feet in diameter varying only fractions of an inch off from perfect.   
   This can only be the result of deliberate, purposeful design guided by   
   forward thinking, organizing intelligence. But how, primitive people had   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)