The cosmological argument with a "non-ID" theist...

[NathanielFisher]

So, I'm in a conversation on YouTube with someone. He claims he is a theist, but not an ID-ist. However Michael Behe, an ID proponent, also shares the same views as him. So I think he is an ID-ist.  He has also made the distinction between "macro and micro" evolution. I have said that evolutionary biologists don't usually make this distinction.

He is using the cosmological argument. However I've stated that it's at least as unlikely as the universe coming into existence via chance, or there being a multiverse. I've also pointed out that for such an intelligent god to exist there would have to be an infinite regress. He then of course says that god is eternal and outside of nature (whilst also being inside of nature, hence "omnipotence".) Also I've said there is no reason for it to be an intelligent god as he claims it is, it could be anything. I've also said that if god is *inside* nature there is no observable evidence for this.

He then uses the argument that there is such a small chance of the universe being created, so "god must have done it". However if there is an infinite amount of "time" outside our finite universe, then "nature", a non-intelligent thing which created the universe, would of had an infinite amount of "time" to "make" the universe. So it's not improbable at all.

Other things he has said include: Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in the Big Bang. I showed him this was wrong. He said that he believed in Einstein's interpretation of god. But he doesn't, because Einstein didn't believe in a personal, intelligent, theistic god.

With another agnostic-atheist poster he then reverts back to:

"With our current understanding of the universe, it is, in fact, more logical to BELIEVE in God (an intelligent designer, not in the sense of ID) than not to. Perhaps in a few hundred years, your position will be more viable. However, for now, it is irrational to believe that the electron, gravity, chemical reactions and evolution are all a product of random chance."

[MY QUESTION:] What do you say to this after all we've been through?

I mean the intelligent designer he postulates must be as or more complex than the universe "it" created so just if not more unlikely than a non-intelligent "designer".

[Will]

I'll frame this as a reply to the following statement:
"With our current understanding of the universe, it is, in fact, more logical to BELIEVE in God (an intelligent designer, not in the sense of ID) than not to. Perhaps in a few hundred years, your position will be more viable. However, for now, it is irrational to believe that the electron, gravity, chemical reactions and evolution are all a product of random chance."
It is not logical to have faith in anything as faith by it's very nature is incompatible with reason and logic. Faith is the belief in something without or in spite of evidence. How can that be logical at all? It isn't. What is sad, though, is this poor uneducated soul (pun intended) believes that chance is the basis on which all science is built. That's nuts. There's no evidence to suggest that the Big Bang was entirely random. It likely had very specific scientific causes which we will eventually explain. For now there are many very interesting hypothesis which are all based in one way or another on some evidence.

[NathanielFisher]

Thanks. I should be paying you for this. You put it perfectly. Cleared things up for me.

[Chimera]

Willravel is the master. Seriously.

[NathanielFisher]

Willravel is the master. Seriously.

Yes. Seems as though he is.

[Will]

Bah, I'm just some guy. We're all just some guy. That's the fun of things, really.  

[NathanielFisher]

Bah, I'm just some guy. We're all just some guy. That's the fun of things, really.  

"I would like to suggest to you the exact opposite, which is that by its nature it IS completely compatible with reason and logic, and that atheism is not. If you're willing to have your point of view changed, please go to the website I have sent to you via message."

That's what he says in a reply. I mean he didn't really address the argument...

[Will]

"I would like to suggest to you the exact opposite, which is that by its nature it IS completely compatible with reason and logic, and that atheism is not. If you're willing to have your point of view changed, please go to the website I have sent to you via message."
My reply:
Your failure to address a single point I've made is a clear message that you're either unable or unwilling to do what you are supposedly asking; you are incapable of changing your established and flawed belief system. A man unwilling to question himself is a man who will cannot evolve. I'll let natural selection take it's course now.

Edit: What's this website? If he's taking all comers (in a sense), I'd be glad to step up and give him the answers he incorrectly believes he has.

[NathanielFisher]

"I would like to suggest to you the exact opposite, which is that by its nature it IS completely compatible with reason and logic, and that atheism is not. If you're willing to have your point of view changed, please go to the website I have sent to you via message."
My reply:
Your failure to address a single point I've made is a clear message that you're either unable or unwilling to do what you are supposedly asking; you are incapable of changing your established and flawed belief system. A man unwilling to question himself is a man who will cannot evolve. I'll let natural selection take it's course now.

Edit: What's this website? If he's taking all comers (in a sense), I'd be glad to step up and give him the answers he incorrectly believes he has.

And I don't have to pay you?

He's on You Tube.

http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php? ... tegoryID=4 is the website he sent me. I'll look into it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InG3pRx4BD4 RationalTheist.