Happy Atheist Forum

A very simple example
Assuming that you eat apples
Each time you eat a red apple you find it sweet
Each time you eat a green apple you find it not
Is it normal to assume that all/most red apples are sweet and that sweetness relates to being red?

Now, let's compare this to the Universe
We see that more complex things require more intelligence to be made, for example
1- A rock
2- An almost straight tree branch
3- A ball made out of clay
4- A nest
5- A Robot

Giving an approximate probability of intelligence for each
1 is most probably made by a non-intelligent maker (nature)  p=0.1
2 is probably made by some intelligence (maybe a monkey)    p=0.3
3 is more probable to be made by intelligence   p=0.5
4 is very high to be made by some intelligence p=0.9
5 is for sure made by intelligence p=1

A human arm is more complex than a robot

Would the normal/rational person thinks that an intelligent creator made the universe?

Your mask is slipping ... I'm beginning to see you for what you are, not so much a logician as a theist and likely a proponent of intelligent design.

Organic limbs (and all of nature) have evolved over many, many millions of years to become complex, science is in the process of explaining that complexity but intelligent design is not a serious option primarily because it is not science.

Kyu

Quote from: "Messenger"Would the normal/rational person thinks that an intelligent creator made the universe?

No.

[/thread]

It is neither intelligence nor coincidence that resulted in the earth.

There is no intelligent creator.  I believe that 100%... I have no facts to back up my belief (and neither do they).

And it wasn't coincidence that resulted in the earth.  The earth is the way it is because things happened the way they did, but it's not coincidence.  I can't find the words to express what I mean... UGH!  It can't have been coincidence but just because it can't have been coincidence, it must be an intelligence.  We are the way we were BECAUSE things happened the way they happened, but it's not coincidence.

First of all I don't see what the title of this thread has to do with those silly assumptions. Here are a couple of my own.

Assuming that you meet a theist on this forum.
Each time you speak to them they just utter complete nonsense or just repeat silly crap that you've already heard 1000 times before.
You notice as well that in 99% of all cases they come from America
Is it normal to assume that all/most American theists are uneducated fools?

Now let's compare that to the universe
We see that more complex things evolved out of simpler things
1. water changes into snow crystals
2. a light breeze changes into a tornado
3. carbon changes into diamonds or oil
4. iron changes into steel

Would the normal/rational person still think that an intelligent creator was behind that all?

Quote from: "Tom62"Would the normal/rational person still think that an intelligent creator was behind that all?

No.

[/thread]

If a seagull gets drunk and hits into a plate glass window, resulting in his death it is not a coincidence.  The two things - drunken seagull and plate glass window - were at the right (wrong) places at the right (wrong) time and the result of their impact obeys the natural laws of physics, chemistry, and biology.  There was simply a complex interaction between two objects which resulted in a logical outcome.
 
The elements on the earth interacted according to the laws of nature eventually resulting in life.  It is improbable on any given planet but when there are enough planets even a one in a billion billions chance is practically a guarantee.  If life hadn't occurred here we wouldn't be around to ponder the idea.

A human arm may be more complex than the robot but an omnipotent being would be far superior in complexity compared to the human arm. So now we're back to the school boy question of "who made the creator?". Well, under the presumption that he has "always existed and has no intelligent creator himself," would it not be more logical to believe that the rather simple things which have resulted in our complexity did not have an intelligent creator either?

In case you hadn't noticed, Messenger, we're onto you.

 

Looking at our whole species, believing in the Judeo-Christian God is not the norm. Only maybe 1/3 of people on Earth believe in that God. Others believe in Allah, or even polytheism. So, in fact, believing in God is not the norm. It's just one of many possibilities.

Quote from: "Sophus"A human arm may be more complex than the robot but an omnipotent being would be far superior in complexity compared to the human arm. So now we're back to the school boy question of "who made the creator?". Well, under the presumption that he has "always existed and has no intelligent creator himself," would it not be more logical to believe that the rather simple things which have resulted in our complexity did not have an intelligent creator either?

I see these threads and usually have an opinion which i'm unable to articulate correctly. For that matter i usually don't give an answer for fear i won't be eloquent enough.

So in this instance, i'll just say "What Sophus said" and leave it at that.

Hope that's ok Sophus.

 

So until a discovery is made of something that is proven to be "irreducibly complex"  - meaning that it couldn't have possibly occurred from something simpler - we'll have to reevaluate our theories. And rightly we should! But I don't believe we've seen this yet. I look forward to any new discoveries and what they might entail.
The Atheist looks forward to new discoveries because it may redefine his/her thinking! And this is exciting to the Atheist. Most deists seem to be more likely to not want to challenge their own beliefs with new data. As if they wish to hold on to something familiar.
-BP


p.s. Was Dawkins the first to coin the phrase "irreducibly complex?"

Quote from: "karadan"I see these threads and usually have an opinion which i'm unable to articulate correctly. For that matter i usually don't give an answer for fear i won't be eloquent enough.

So in this instance, i'll just say "What Sophus said" and leave it at that.

Hope that's ok Sophus.

 

I'm flattered.

Why are you comparing normal (common) assumptions to rational conclusions?

What Messengers beliefs are, and whether he really is a logician became apparent in this thread : http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2237 Which he started himself. It has gone dead after he has failed to respond to any question. I choose not even to vote in this, because the options are simply too ridiculous.  

I always just assumed Messenger was a theist due to the name Messenger.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"I always just assumed Messenger was a theist due to the name Messenger.

Haha, ditto.

Quote from: "BadPoison"p.s. Was Dawkins the first to coin the phrase "irreducibly complex?"

No, to answer your question. I know the idea was made famous by Michael Behe in Darwin's Black Box, and I believe he MAY have been the one who coined the term. Don't quote me on that though...unless you find I'm wrong, then quote me and call me a dillweed for not knowing.  

Thanks!

Perhaps belief in God is the norm but the norm isn't always a good thing.  Having roundworms and fleas is the norm for feral cats.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Perhaps belief in God is the norm but the norm isn't always a good thing.  Having roundworms and fleas is the norm for feral cats.

 

I did actually have fleas last year. No joke.

There's a carpeted room in the basement of our house (we rented, lived here for a year and a half) that the last tenants used as a rec room. The house is pets-free, but they obviously had a cat: the room smelled slightly like cat urine. Well, I was sorting through all my things that we don't use anymore (guys who moved in with girlfriends will understand what I'm talking about) when I noticed a little bug crawling up my leg. I flicked it off, and continued what I was doing. Long story short, I was covered in fleas, spent $100 in powders and bombs, and was piiiiiissed.

Still don't believe in God, just for the record.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Perhaps belief in God is the norm but the norm isn't always a good thing.  Having roundworms and fleas is the norm for feral cats.

 :P

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Perhaps belief in God is the norm but the norm isn't always a good thing.  Having roundworms and fleas is the norm for feral cats.

I mean by the word norm here: common sense or simple logic

Evolution is an imaginary theory that can be refuted easily, wait f or this

Quote from: "Messenger"Evolution is an imaginary theory that can be refuted easily

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages38.fotki.com%2Fv1213%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2Fwrong-vi.gif&hash=3ac4899e06e04f2d006f1b54466cd934448c2eeb)

Quote from: "Messenger"Evolution is an imaginary theory that can be refuted easily, wait for this

Let's see ... the scientific community, all bar a few hundred scientists with religious biases, accept evolution and all relevant evolutionary scientists accept evolution yet you think it is an an imaginary theory that can be easily refuted?

Oh go on then ... impress us with your mind-boggling stupidity!!!!!  

Kyu

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Perhaps belief in God is the norm but the norm isn't always a good thing.  Having roundworms and fleas is the norm for feral cats.

I mean by the word norm here: common sense or simple logic

Evolution is an imaginary theory that can be refuted easily, wait f or this

It's really a shame the forum can't enforce honesty on the "worldview" display.  

I've never met anyone who wasn't a Christian or Muslim who was a vocal creation supporter and who felt the need to call evolution "an imaginary theory" and use a holier-than-thou patronizing tone in doing so.  A theory is a conjecture or group of conjectures used to explain something such as how animals, plants, and other living things reached their current state.  A theory is that conjecture or group of conjectures whether or not they are conclusively proven.  

You see, regardless of whether evolution happened or not (it likely happened due to overwhelming historical, archeological, and biological evidence) evolution is a theory.  

Also, the word 'norm' does not mean just anything you desire.  Norm has a definition.

QuoteNorm
â€"noun
1.    a standard, model, or pattern.
2.    general level or average: Two cars per family is the norm in most suburban communities.
3.    Education.
a.    a designated standard of average performance of people of a given age, background, etc.
b.    a standard based on the past average performance of a given individual.
4.    Mathematics.
a.    a real-valued, nonnegative function whose domain is a vector space, with properties such that the function of a vector is zero only when the vector is zero, the function of a scalar times a vector is equal to the absolute value of the scalar times the function of the vector, and the function of the sum of two vectors is less than or equal to the sum of the functional values of each vector. The norm of a real number is its absolute value.
b.    the greatest difference between two successive points of a given partition.

These words have definitions and if you are to use logic as actual logicians do, you must used the accepted definitions of such terms unless you first give your atypical definitions prior to your use of the words.

Additionally, I've only known fundamentalist theists to completely reject the theory of evolution.  Most people who believe evolution happens and has happened ARE theists.  Average theists do not feel threatened by scientifically explainable phenomena such as erosion, evolution, continental drift, global warming or weather patterns.  In my experience it's pretty much just been fundamentalists who see "flaws" in evolution.  The vast majority of religious folks believe the world works according to logical principles and natural laws.  If evolution were thought to be an "imaginary theory" by the majority of theists it would never have made it into the public arena.  Theists are the majority, especially in the US.  4% of the US population couldn't force any theory, including the theory of gravity, into the public arena unless a majority of theists also thought the theory to be correct.

A belief in deity is illogical in a rational sense but people (especially en masse) are inherently illogical so yes, a belief is deity does appear to be "normal" in human society. As others have said that is not necessarily a good thing.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"A belief in deity is illogical in a rational sense but people (especially en masse) are inherently illogical so yes, a belief is deity does appear to be "normal" in human society. As others have said that is not necessarily a good thing.

Kyu

I think I'd call it typical more than normal.  

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"A belief in deity is illogical in a rational sense but people (especially en masse) are inherently illogical so yes, a belief is deity does appear to be "normal" in human society. As others have said that is not necessarily a good thing.

Kyu

I think I'd call it typical more than normal.  

I agree. I don't find belief in religion and god to be 'normal' (at least what I perceive as normal), but merely typical of an ever-increasing trend towards holy fundamentalism in humans (not all, just a good chunk). Even though atheistic views have been and will continue to make strides towards a secular and logical world, the fundies won't go away very easily.

Quote from: "oldschooldoc"

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"A belief in deity is illogical in a rational sense but people (especially en masse) are inherently illogical so yes, a belief is deity does appear to be "normal" in human society. As others have said that is not necessarily a good thing.

Kyu

I think I'd call it typical more than normal.  

I agree. I don't find belief in religion and god to be 'normal' (at least what I perceive as normal), but merely typical of an ever-increasing trend towards holy fundamentalism in humans (not all, just a good chunk). Even though atheistic views have been and will continue to make strides towards a secular and logical world, the fundies won't go away very easily.

So what really should be done to combat such ignorance - or what can I do to help large quantities of uninformed individuals see reason? Or maybe this should be a new topic (or more likely already is an older topic)

messenger you are a fucking idiot! you're an "expert in logic" as you claimed in a previous thread (linked to on the first page)? what a joke. you have the logical reasoning skills typical of someone who could buy into religion. please get off this board. it is meant for people who want to know truth, not spread ignorance.

Quote from: "brekfustuvluzerz"messenger you are a fucking idiot! you're an "expert in logic" as you claimed in a previous thread (linked to on the first page)? what a joke. you have the logical reasoning skills typical of someone who could buy into religion. please get off this board. it is meant for people who want to know truth, not spread ignorance.

Hey, now. Even if Messenger has a worldview and opinions contrary to those held by the majority of the people on this board doesn't mean you need to insult him/her (I only say that because I don't know) like that. This board is intended for those who (if you read the header) are interested in "secular discussion." That means anyone interested in discussing religion or theistic positions (since it's the obvious contrary position) are welcome.

If you want to refute what Messenger says, the best way is to argue it, not spout off. Messenger has every right to espouse his/her own views. Argue them rationally without crass insults. Messenger's statement about evolution is ridiculously simplistic and easily falsifiable. Address that.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Hey, now. Even if Messenger has a worldview and opinions contrary to those held by the majority of the people on this board doesn't mean you need to insult him/her (I only say that because I don't know) like that. This board is intended for those who (if you read the header) are interested in "secular discussion." That means anyone interested in discussing religion or theistic positions (since it's the obvious contrary position) are welcome.

If you want to refute what Messenger says, the best way is to argue it, not spout off. Messenger has every right to espouse his/her own views. Argue them rationally without crass insults. Messenger's statement about evolution is ridiculously simplistic and easily falsifiable. Address that.

Thank you and I hope that God guide you to the right way!

Quote from: "oldschooldoc"I agree. I don't find belief in religion and god to be 'normal' (at least what I perceive as normal), but merely typical of an ever-increasing trend towards holy fundamentalism in humans (not all, just a good chunk). Even though atheistic views have been and will continue to make strides towards a secular and logical world, the fundies won't go away very easily.

If you exclude evolution, will it be logical to believe in God or not?

or in other words, taking into consideration how we look to complexity and its relation to intelligence, would that be a clue that an intelligent deity created the Universe or not?

Quote from: "Messenger"Thank you and I hope that God guide you to the right way!

That doesn't mean I believe your inanity, just that I'm defending your right to spout it.

Incidentally, it's "guides".

Quote from: "Messenger"If you exclude evolution, will it be logical to believe in God or not?

It would be no more logical than to believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "oldschooldoc"I agree. I don't find belief in religion and god to be 'normal' (at least what I perceive as normal), but merely typical of an ever-increasing trend towards holy fundamentalism in humans (not all, just a good chunk). Even though atheistic views have been and will continue to make strides towards a secular and logical world, the fundies won't go away very easily.

If you exclude evolution, will it be logical to believe in God or not?

or in other words, taking into consideration how we look to complexity and its relation to intelligence, would that be a clue that an intelligent deity created the Universe or not?

Excluding evolution, to me, would be like denying the existence of stars outside our solar system. It has no practical use as an example because it makes no sense to exclude it. Even if we were to exclude evolution when using an example, it wouldn't add credence to the notion of a higher power. It would just mean there is a different scientific explanation for how animals and plants came to be.

Magic is never, and will never be the answer.

Just because something is complex, doesn't mean it had a creator. Just because you cannot fathom how it came to be, doesn't mean a higher power created it. That, in my opinion, is a cop-out. It is the easiest way to explain something because it doesn't require any intelligent thought or critical analysis whatsoever.

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"If you exclude evolution, will it be logical to believe in God or not?

It would be no more logical than to believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

Then debate my example?

If every time you eat a red apple you find it sweet and a green one you find it bitter, normal/logical people will relate sweetness to the red color

Rational people relate creation & intelligence to complexity

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"If you exclude evolution, will it be logical to believe in God or not?

It would be no more logical than to believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

Then debate my example?

If every time you eat a red apple you find it sweet and a green one you find it bitter, normal/logical people will relate sweetness to the red color

Rational people relate creation & intelligence to complexity

No, rational people want to find answers to the big questions without resorting to magic and mysticism.

Creationism is the philisophical crutch of the irrational simpleton.

Quote from: "Messenger"Rational people relate creation & intelligence to complexity

No they don't.

Intelligent beings, can create simple things. (paper weight)
And unintelligent mechanisms can create complexity. (snow flake)

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"Rational people relate creation & intelligence to complexity

No they don't.

Intelligent beings, can create simple things. (paper weight)
And unintelligent mechanisms can create complexity. (snow flake)

This is circular logic, you used snow flakes which is the point of discussion (God creation) to prove your point

Can you generate/make a random process that can create uniform, complex things?
No you can not; Evolution will be the only thing you can imagine

Quote from: "brekfustuvluzerz"messenger you are a fucking idiot! you're an "expert in logic" as you claimed in a previous thread (linked to on the first page)? what a joke. you have the logical reasoning skills typical of someone who could buy into religion. please get off this board. it is meant for people who want to know truth, not spread ignorance.

ROFLLMFAO  ... well said!

Kyu

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"Rational people relate creation & intelligence to complexity

No they don't.

Intelligent beings, can create simple things. (paper weight)
And unintelligent mechanisms can create complexity. (snow flake)

This is circular logic, you used snow flakes which is the point of discussion (God creation) to prove your point

Can you generate/make a random process that can create uniform, complex things?
No you can not; Evolution will be the only thing you can imagine

So, God creates all snow flakes? Is that what you are saying? He is weilding a great snow blower in the sky then, i assume?

If not, then i'll try to explain how a snowflake is formed to support bowmore's suggestions.

A cloud is made up of water vapour. When the temperature is just right, the vapour in the cloud freezes. When water turns to ice, it crystalises in a lattice formation and because of the shape of the H2O molecule, dictates it's usually hexagonal, symmetrical shape. Also, the freezing process brings these molecules together so that when they coagulate, are unable to support their own weight in the cloud, and then fall to earth as snow.

It is simply a hydroscopic nuclei falling from a visible manifestation of condensation.

It certainly is NOT god's dandruff.

Please elaborate what you mean by:
"Can you generate/make a random process that can create uniform, complex things?"

I can think of many but your question is a little vague. I just want to know i have the gist of what you are saying before i answer.

Quote from: "Messenger"This is circular logic, you used snow flakes which is the point of discussion (God creation) to prove your point

This is not true, we know that the structures of snow flakes are the result of physical laws. Unless you can prove god hand assembles each individual snow flake, snow flakes are made by nature. You only protest because it makes your entire argument tumble down.

Quote from: "Messenger"Can you generate/make a random process that can create uniform, complex things?
No you can not;

I guess you've never heard of fractals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal)...

Quote from: "Messenger"Evolution will be the only thing you can imagine

hehe nope.

Quote from: "bowmore"This is not true, we know that the structures of snow flakes are the result of physical laws. Unless you can prove god hand assembles each individual snow flake, snow flakes are made by nature. You only protest because it makes your entire argument tumble down.

We are discussing things done by God (from my point of view) and done by nature (from your point of view)
Those events can not be used as a proof (neither by me or you)

We can only use things that we both know and agree on

For example we both know that Robots are 1- Complex 2- Created  3-by human intelligence
also we know that a less complex object (as a stick) 1-Less complex 2-Created 3-Possibly by intelligence ( for example P=0.1)

So based on many similar examples we can relate complexity to intelligence creation

Now it is your turn to give an example that violates this pattern
P.S. Snow flakes shapes are not that complex (Just we don't know yet how it is formed and why) http://snowflakes.barkleyus.com/index.html

Quote from: "Messenger"We are discussing things done by God (from my point of view) and done by nature (from your point of view)
Those events can not be used as a proof (neither by me or you)

Wrong because science doesn't claim to be correct (it does not regard its explanations as absolute) and therefore can be regarded as our best current explanation given the available data. What;s more scientific explanation are useful ... not only do they allow us to do things, to build things, to make things work and are testable they also make predictions. Religious/god explanations however do claim to be correct, they do so without a shred of evidence or a shred of usefulness in any real terms, they do not make things work  and they have no predictive value so they can be considered the extraordinary claim and therefore require solid supporting evidence.

You have none.

Kyu

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"This is not true, we know that the structures of snow flakes are the result of physical laws. Unless you can prove god hand assembles each individual snow flake, snow flakes are made by nature. You only protest because it makes your entire argument tumble down.

We are discussing things done by God (from my point of view) and done by nature (from your point of view)
Those events can not be used as a proof (neither by me or you)

We can only use things that we both know and agree on

For example we both know that Robots are 1- Complex 2- Created  3-by human intelligence
also we know that a less complex object (as a stick) 1-Less complex 2-Created 3-Possibly by intelligence ( for example P=0.1)

So based on many similar examples we can relate complexity to intelligence creation

Now it is your turn to give an example that violates this pattern
P.S. Snow flakes shapes are not that complex (Just we don't know yet how it is formed and why) http://snowflakes.barkleyus.com/index.html

There is no real form of debate with someone displaying your mindset. The reason being?

You seem to think things you make up in your head are fact.

You seem to think everything is made by god so going by that, there is nothing we can successfully debate with you because you've already made up your mind - which is closed to all possibilities other than 'everything is made by god'. There is simply nothing we will be able to agree on because you think everything is made by god and we don't believe god exists.

You conveniently gloss over the more difficult questions aimed at you, ie, fractals. We, on the other hand, will answer every question you ask of us.

You clutch at straws because you are trying to convince us (and yourself) that what you've been force-fed (brainwashed) into believing is actually true, when infact none of it even exists!

If you were to really listen to your heart, somewhere in there, i'm sure, would be a faint voice of reason. A voice yearning to escape the confines of the vitriol which holds your reality matrix in bondage.

Quote from: "Messenger"Now it is your turn to give an example that violates this pattern
P.S. Snow flakes shapes are not that complex (Just we don't know yet how it is formed and why) http://snowflakes.barkleyus.com/index.html

I've given fractals as an example as well. You ignored that apparently.

We do know how snow flakes are formed, and if you think they are not complex, then I'll ask you to define complexity, because I'm afraid we have different ideas of complexity.

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"Now it is your turn to give an example that violates this pattern
P.S. Snow flakes shapes are not that complex (Just we don't know yet how it is formed and why) http://snowflakes.barkleyus.com/index.html

I've given fractals as an example as well. You ignored that apparently.

Yes he/she did. You know why? Because it was a damn good example.

Quote from: "Messenger"Then debate my example?

If every time you eat a red apple you find it sweet and a green one you find it bitter, normal/logical people will relate sweetness to the red color

Rational people relate creation & intelligence to complexity

I'm not a "logic expert" but wouldn't this be a basic logic fallacy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converse_accident

Yes, I believe it is.

Quote from: "Messenger"For example we both know that Robots are 1- Complex 2- Created 3-by human intelligence
also we know that a less complex object (as a stick) 1-Less complex 2-Created 3-Possibly by intelligence ( for example P=0.1)

1. Robots are complex.
2. Robots are created.
3. Humans are complex and created.
4. Who/what then created humanities creator?

This line of thinking only leads to the question of number four. It's flawed. So this can't be the case. The only logical solution is that number 3 is wrong.

Quote from: "BadPoison"1. Robots are complex.
2. Robots are created.
3. Humans are complex and created.
4. Who/what then created humanities creator?

This line of thinking only leads to the question of number four. It's flawed. So this can't be the case. The only logical solution is that number 3 is wrong.

The problem is that theists are perfectly comfortable ignoring their own logic.  They'll use flawed logic to get to the point of man being a created object because he's complex but will stick their fingers in their ears yelling "lalalalalalalalalalala" if you suggest god (if it were humanity's creator) would be even more complex than man and thus also needing a creator by their own flawed logic.  

All you are going to hear is that god always existed even though it breaks the "logic" used by theists themselves.

Most fundamentalist Christians such as Messenger are unable to see the contradiction in logic when they say that everything complex must be created yet God (in their beliefs the most complex thing in existence) need not have been created but simply always existed.  Just as Messenger ignored my response to his assertion that "evolution is an imaginary theory" I full well expect him to ignore your question regarding his logic.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"All you are going to hear is that god always existed even though it breaks the "logic" used by theists themselves.

Ironically, all humans I know are very complex, and not one has been created. They all grew from a fertilized cell.
This is completely against the 'logic' of complexity implies created.


<edit>Hi Kylyssa, you have the cutest avatar ever!</edit>

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "oldschooldoc"I agree. I don't find belief in religion and god to be 'normal' (at least what I perceive as normal), but merely typical of an ever-increasing trend towards holy fundamentalism in humans (not all, just a good chunk). Even though atheistic views have been and will continue to make strides towards a secular and logical world, the fundies won't go away very easily.

If you exclude evolution, will it be logical to believe in God or not?

or in other words, taking into consideration how we look to complexity and its relation to intelligence, would that be a clue that an intelligent deity created the Universe or not?

Wow, this discussion took off like a rocket in the past 18 hours...

First off, why would we exclude evolution? It is the argument in the whole discussion actually based on scientific findings, not faith based, blind beliefs. Now to humor your hypothetical (excluding evolution). Even if evolution were debunked, belief in god would not be logical until evidence supported his/her existence (just like evidence supports evolution today).

So, it's not only evolution that makes belief in a god or gods illogical. It is also the lack of evidence in support of a god or gods.

Quote from: "oldschooldoc"First off, why would we exclude evolution? It is the argument in the whole discussion actually based on scientific findings, not faith based, blind beliefs. Now to humor your hypothetical (excluding evolution). Even if evolution were debunked, belief in god would not be logical until evidence supported his/her existence (just like evidence supports evolution today).

This is my point, if Evolution is excluded believing in God is very straight forward from our universal observations
Intelligence creation is related to complexity
So it can not blind, ridiculous or without evidence

Maybe some/many religion details are but not the concept of God!

Quote from: "Kylyssa"The problem is that theists are perfectly comfortable ignoring their own logic.  They'll use flawed logic to get to the point of man being a created object because he's complex but will stick their fingers in their ears yelling "lalalalalalalalalalala" if you suggest god (if it were humanity's creator) would be even more complex than man and thus also needing a creator by their own flawed logic.  

All you are going to hear is that god always existed even though it breaks the "logic" used by theists themselves.

Good question
here is the logic behind it
If God exists, he will be outside the Universe
which means he is not like anything inside it
Universal observations/laws can not apply to him (Only logic)
So the concept of complexity does not apply to him

Quote from: "BadPoison"I'm not a "logic expert" but wouldn't this be a basic logic fallacy?

No, it is called statistical probability based on experience, I did not say that this proves God 100% but it gives us a confidence level about it

Quote1. Robots are complex.
2. Robots are created.
3. Humans are complex and created.
4. Who/what then created humanities creator?

This line of thinking only leads to the question of number four. It's flawed. So this can't be the case. The only logical solution is that number 3 is wrong.

No, 3 is wrong is one of the logical solutions (but it has a very low probability)
If almost every thing we see is related by complexity to intelligent creation
Then we can deduce (with very high probability) that more complex things (us, universe, etc.) is also related

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Wrong because science doesn't claim to be correct (it does not regard its explanations as absolute) and therefore can be regarded as our best current explanation given the available data.

It seems that you don't understand/follow this discussion
If we are debating if human, universe are created or not
You can not say because the universe (or part of it) is not created, so human is not created
This is circular logic and has no meaning at all

QuoteReligious/god explanations however do claim to be correct, they do so without a shred of evidence or a shred of usefulness in any real terms, they do not make things work  and they have no predictive value so they can be considered the extraordinary claim and therefore require solid supporting evidence.

Don't assert things you don't know
The true god can be proved scientifically and logically, so don't rush things

Quote from: "bowmore"This is not true, we know that the structures of snow flakes are the result of physical laws. Unless you can prove god hand assembles each individual snow flake, snow flakes are made by nature. You only protest because it makes your entire argument tumble down.

Yes, but we don't agree that universal laws are created by God
Second, complexity does not mean just many patterns
It means many parts assembled to fit a certain function (for example human body, solar systems, food chain, etc.)

QuoteI guess you've never heard of fractals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal)...

It has no benefits or function, so it is not complex (regarding our discussion)

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"This is not true, we know that the structures of snow flakes are the result of physical laws. Unless you can prove god hand assembles each individual snow flake, snow flakes are made by nature. You only protest because it makes your entire argument tumble down.

Yes, but we don't agree that universal laws are created by God

True, but we do agree that they are part of nature, and you have yourself used nature as an example.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"Second, complexity does not mean just many patterns
It means many parts assembled to fit a certain function (for example human body, solar systems, food chain, etc.)

Isn't that opening a can of wurms? I can now just argue that bone of the examples you've given are complex, since none of them perform a function.
What is the function of the human body?
What is the function of a solar system?
What is the function of a food chain?

Function is subjective.

I feel you're ultimately dragging morality into this, that is bound to 'complicate' matters further.
Wouldn't a definition of complexity that allowed for simple measurement be much more practical?

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteI guess you've never heard of fractals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal)...

It has no benefits or function, so it is not complex (regarding our discussion)

In your weird definition of complexity it is indeed not complex. In the traditional sense of complex it is.

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"This is not true, we know that the structures of snow flakes are the result of physical laws. Unless you can prove god hand assembles each individual snow flake, snow flakes are made by nature. You only protest because it makes your entire argument tumble down.

Yes, but we don't agree that universal laws are created by God

True, but we do agree that they are part of nature, and you have yourself used nature as an example.

You can not use it as an evidence, because I don't deny them, I claim that they are created by God for an (Intelligent) purpose
You claim that they work by themselves
I brought examples of intelligent creation (we both agree on them)
You need to bring example(s) of non intelligent behavior leading to complex/useful results
(for example a random generator program that can win the lottery most of the times   )

QuoteIsn't that opening a can of wurms? I can now just argue that bone of the examples you've given are complex, since none of them perform a function.
What is the function of the human body?

It is not the whole function, it is something like:
Sperm and Egg are crated to fit each other with a lot of details

QuoteIn your weird definition of complexity it is indeed not complex. In the traditional sense of complex it is.

Maybe I'm missing the word, but I mean usefulness or sophistication not just complex

Quote from: "Messenger"You need to bring example(s) of non intelligent behavior leading to complex/useful results

(for example a random generator program that can win the lottery most of the times  :D )

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteIsn't that opening a can of wurms? I can now just argue that bone of the examples you've given are complex, since none of them perform a function.
What is the function of the human body?

It is not the whole function, it is something like:
Sperm and Egg are crated to fit each other with a lot of details

Are you claiming sperm and egg are created here?
The question remains : what is their function? The answer to that is subjective.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteIn your weird definition of complexity it is indeed not complex. In the traditional sense of complex it is.

Maybe I'm missing the word, but I mean usefulness or sophistication not just complex

usefulness is (tied to function) subjective.

Even a puddle of mud can be useful. (e.g. as feeding ground for certain plants)

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"You need to bring example(s) of non intelligent behavior leading to complex/useful results
(for example a random generator program that can win the lottery most of the times  :D )

I mean something we both know that it is not intelligent yet produce something useful and sophisticated

QuoteAre you claiming sperm and egg are created here?
The question remains : what is their function? The answer to that is subjective.

I don't know what is the meaning of "here" here
Their function is production "creation of human fetus"

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"You mean something like neural networks. (although predicting the future is not within their power   )

I mean something we both know that it is not intelligent yet produce something useful and sophisticated

Like neural networks.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteAre you claiming sperm and egg are created here?
The question remains : what is their function? The answer to that is subjective.

I don't know what is the meaning of "here" here

In the quoted post.

Quote from: "Messenger"Their function is production "creation of human fetus"

How is that useful? (see, I can just keep questioning the use of every function you provide, which is why I say you just make things more difficult, by ultimately reducing this to a debate on morality)

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"You mean something like neural networks. (although predicting the future is not within their power   )

I mean something we both know that it is not intelligent yet produce something useful and sophisticated

Like neural networks.

Whatever

QuoteHow is that useful? (see, I can just keep questioning the use of every function you provide, which is why I say you just make things more difficult, by ultimately reducing this to a debate on morality)

I don't care if it is useful for us or not, I mean useful as it has a defined end result
Sperm and eggs are created with sophistication (many details) to produce a result that can be repeated with almost the same details and processes

Another example will be nut and bullets, intelligence creation lead to match details in both of them to perform the same function over and over

Can you bring just one example to violate this rule? (I'm here very easy on you as I don't ask for a proof, just one single example)

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"Like neural networks.

Whatever

So you accept neural networks as an example? Or does "whatever" mean you'll ignore it?

Quote from: "Messenger"I don't care if it is useful for us or not, I mean useful as it has a defined end result

Then you have no basis for rejecting fractals as an example.

Quote from: "Messenger"Another example will be nut and bullets, intelligence creation lead to match details in both of them to perform the same function over and over

Can you bring just one example to violate this rule? (I'm here very easy on you as I don't ask for a proof, just one single example)

You mean like water and a river bed?

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"

Like neural networks.

Whatever

So you accept neural networks as an example? Or does "whatever" mean you'll ignore it?[/quote]Yes, I'll accept it, explain?

QuoteThen you have no basis for rejecting fractals as an example.

Fractals are not complex it is repeated very simple operations
Sperm has many parts each one match another part/function in the womb, egg, etc.

Quote

Quote from: "Messenger"Another example will be nut and bullets, intelligence creation lead to match details in both of them to perform the same function over and over

Can you bring just one example to violate this rule? (I'm here very easy on you as I don't ask for a proof, just one single example)

You mean like water and a river bed?

Explain?

Quote from: "Messenger"Yes, I'll accept it, explain?

Simple nodes (neurons) works together and can be 'trained' to give a desired result.
It has many composing parts (a network of neurons)
Which by themselves are not intelligent (they have a simple function that tells them to fire or not)

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteThen you have no basis for rejecting fractals as an example.

Fractals are not complex it is repeated very simple operations
Sperm has many parts each one match another part/function in the womb, egg, etc.

The basic mechanism of a fractal may not be complex, the result is.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteYou mean like water and a river bed?

Explain?

Water shapes the river bed, which in turn transports the water to sea.
Water is a complex body of H2O molecules and a host of polluents.
A river bed is a complex structure of soil, rocks and plants.
Both work together to transport excess water from the land to the sea.

Quote from: "bowmore"Simple nodes (neurons) works together and can be 'trained' to give a desired result.
It has many composing parts (a network of neurons)
Which by themselves are not intelligent (they have a simple function that tells them to fire or not)

What do you mean by not intelligent
Neural networks need a lot of intelligence to be designed and implemented properly

QuoteThe basic mechanism of a fractal may not be complex, the result is.

There is no complication in the process as fertilization

QuoteWater shapes the river bed, which in turn transports the water to sea.
Water is a complex body of H2O molecules and a host of polluents.
A river bed is a complex structure of soil, rocks and plants.
Both work together to transport excess water from the land to the sea.

Complexity of water is out of discussion (as it is a point of the debate itself)
If you mean the river bed shape, it is random and has no pattern

Quote from: "Messenger"What do you mean by not intelligent
Neural networks need a lot of intelligence to be designed and implemented properly

I mean that the way to solve to problem or to deliver the result, is not designed by the designer of the network, and it also doesn't reside in the neurons themselves.
It is after all you that proposed to give an example of a program. If you are now going to complain that programs are themselves designed you are being unreasonable. Apparently, I must give an example that is not natural, and not man made. You've then created a construction which is unfalsifiable, and therefore useless, as there is no way of telling if it is true or not.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteThe basic mechanism of a fractal may not be complex, the result is.

There is no complication in the process as fertilization

It is ample example that complexity can derive from simple principles. This may not be impressive to you, so be it.

Quote from: "Messenger"Complexity of water is out of discussion (as it is a point of the debate itself)
If you mean the river bed shape, it is random and has no pattern

It has a pattern on the macro level.

But let's take a look at your OP again :

Quote from: "Messenger"1- A rock
2- An almost straight tree branch
3- A ball made out of clay
4- A nest
5- A Robot

Giving an approximate probability of intelligence for each
1 is most probably made by a non-intelligent maker (nature)  p=0.1
2 is probably made by some intelligence (maybe a monkey)    p=0.3
3 is more probable to be made by intelligence   p=0.5
4 is very high to be made by some intelligence p=0.9
5 is for sure made by intelligence p=1

1 - 4 are examples from nature. I should reject those as they are the point of debate.

The relation between complexity and design you establish is based on unacceptable examples. So based on your criticism of my examples, you must reject your own as well, destroying your initial statement.

Quote from: "bowmore"It is after all you that proposed to give an example of a program.

I said random program
It is like throwing 1,0s and trying to compile and run the sequence

QuoteIt has a pattern on the macro level.

Creation

QuoteBut let's take a look at your OP again :

Quote from: "Messenger"1- A rock
2- An almost straight tree branch
3- A ball made out of clay
4- A nest
5- A Robot

Giving an approximate probability of intelligence for each
1 is most probably made by a non-intelligent maker (nature)  p=0.1
2 is probably made by some intelligence (maybe a monkey)    p=0.3
3 is more probable to be made by intelligence   p=0.5
4 is very high to be made by some intelligence p=0.9
5 is for sure made by intelligence p=1

1 - 4 are examples from nature. I should reject those as they are the point of debate.

1 agree with your claims (nature is not intelligent)
4 also agree with your beliefs as birds has some intelligence

QuoteThe relation between complexity and design you establish is based on unacceptable examples. So based on your criticism of my examples, you must reject your own as well, destroying your initial statement.

You are making no sense here!

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"It is after all you that proposed to give an example of a program.

I said random program
It is like throwing 1,0s and trying to compile and run the sequence

Random is not the opposite of intelligent.

Quote from: "Messenger"1 agree with your claims (nature is not intelligent)
4 also agree with your beliefs as birds has some intelligence

QuoteThe relation between complexity and design you establish is based on unacceptable examples. So based on your criticism of my examples, you must reject your own as well, destroying your initial statement.

You are making no sense here!

Simple examples 1,2,3 and 4 in your OP are examples from nature (rock, tree, clay, nest) apparently examples from nature are unacceptable. Which leaves us with your example 5. That's not much to base the proposed relation between Complexity and design on.

Quote from: "bowmore"Random is not the opposite of intelligent.

call it unintelligent

QuoteSimple examples 1,2,3 and 4 in your OP are examples from nature (rock, tree, clay, nest) apparently examples from nature are unacceptable. Which leaves us with your example 5. That's not much to base the proposed relation between Complexity and design on.

I don't understand this, it does not matter if it is from nature or not, as long that we agree on the cause they are valid
Or do you meant that birds don't do their nests!

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"Random is not the opposite of intelligent.

call it unintelligent

That's what I did. neurons are not intelligent.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteSimple examples 1,2,3 and 4 in your OP are examples from nature (rock, tree, clay, nest) apparently examples from nature are unacceptable. Which leaves us with your example 5. That's not much to base the proposed relation between Complexity and design on.

I don't understand this, it does not matter if it is from nature or not, as long that we agree on the cause they are valid
Or do you meant that birds don't do their nests!

Great, then I'll disagree with the cause for all 5.

:p

Quote from: "Messenger"This is my point, if Evolution is excluded believing in God is very straight forward from our universal observations
Intelligence creation is related to complexity
So it can not blind, ridiculous or without evidence

Maybe some/many religion details are but not the concept of God!

Eh? It is not straight forward or logical. Like I said in my earlier post:

QuoteEven if evolution were debunked, belief in god would not be logical until evidence supported his/her existence (just like evidence supports evolution today).

Or did you just not want to address that?

Yes, intelligent design (by intelligence I am talking about human) is related to complexity, in inanimate objects.
There is no convincing evidence in support of ID, if you have some you want to share you are welcome to. I can't wait for that...

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"Random is not the opposite of intelligent.

call it unintelligent

That's what I did. neurons are not intelligent.

Of course they are intelligent (system)
It is like saying as 0 and 1 are not intelligent then any computer software isn't

Quote

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteSimple examples 1,2,3 and 4 in your OP are examples from nature (rock, tree, clay, nest) apparently examples from nature are unacceptable. Which leaves us with your example 5. That's not much to base the proposed relation between Complexity and design on.

I don't understand this, it does not matter if it is from nature or not, as long that we agree on the cause they are valid
Or do you meant that birds don't do their nests!

Great, then I'll disagree with the cause for all 5.

What?
I brought examples you and me (and all rational people) know its cause
Then we try to approximate things we don't know to what we know, this is very scientific!

Quote from: "oldschooldoc"Eh? It is not straight forward or logical. Like I said in my earlier post:

QuoteEven if evolution were debunked, belief in god would not be logical until evidence supported his/her existence (just like evidence supports evolution today).

Or did you just not want to address that?

Yes, intelligent design (by intelligence I am talking about human) is related to complexity, in inanimate objects.

Thanks
This almost proves a God

QuoteThere is no convincing evidence in support of ID, if you have some you want to share you are welcome to

Yes, there is
Wait a bit and I'll not prove only that there is A God, i can prove THE GOD as well

Quote from: "Messenger"Wait a bit and I'll not prove only that there is A God, i can prove THE GOD as well

Now that would be a real miracle, because no-one has ever been able to prove the existence of [a] God.

Quotebelieving in god is the norm

I dont think so
lock up a new born baby in a confined space, talk to it about no gods no religions and no traditions, and most likely when he grows up he wont know what god is

Quote from: "Tom62"

Quote from: "Messenger"Wait a bit and I'll not prove only that there is A God, i can prove THE GOD as well

Now that would be a real miracle, because no-one has ever been able to prove the existence of [a] God.

It is a simple logical proof
The problem is that many people don't accept because they blindly believe in a God/No God of their choice

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Tom62"

Quote from: "Messenger"Wait a bit and I'll not prove only that there is A God, i can prove THE GOD as well

Now that would be a real miracle, because no-one has ever been able to prove the existence of [a] God.

It is a simple logical proof
The problem is that many people don't accept because they blindly believe in a God/No God of their choice

Well, let's see this proof, Messenger. Like others I am quite fascinated to see how you can prove what no one esle has been able to prove before.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kylyssa"The problem is that theists are perfectly comfortable ignoring their own logic.  They'll use flawed logic to get to the point of man being a created object because he's complex but will stick their fingers in their ears yelling "lalalalalalalalalalala" if you suggest god (if it were humanity's creator) would be even more complex than man and thus also needing a creator by their own flawed logic.  

All you are going to hear is that god always existed even though it breaks the "logic" used by theists themselves.

Good question
here is the logic behind it
If God exists, he will be outside the Universe
which means he is not like anything inside it
Universal observations/laws can not apply to him (Only logic)
So the concept of complexity does not apply to him

So, then who made the God place?  If you believe there is a place outside the universe where God exists and natural laws of that place created God, then why not take it a step further and say - perhaps nothing is outside of the universe and the rules of THIS universe allow things to come together naturally to form life.  If you can decide the God universe place can allow a God to come into existence without yet another God creating it then why is it such a stretch to imagine the universe as a place where the natural properties of the universe allow for things to come together and eventually form into life?  

Also, what created the magic space outside the universe where God evolved via natural properties and characteristics of that universe?  And why is it easier to believe a God, the most complex being imaginable, can evolve in another universe without being created yet relatively simple things such as ourselves cannot?

Deciding that since the properties and characteristics of this universe don't allow what you want to be the truth to have happened it doesn't logically follow that another universe that has characteristics and properties that allow your desire to exist must exist.  

You claim you can prove the existence of the one true God - by which I assume you mean the Abrahamic God.  You will then prove how although your God is three entities - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost - it is really only one.  Then you will explain how since Jesus is the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost that He still sacrificed Himself as His Son, because He created Himself and agreed to torture Himself to redeem the creations He hides from and the Holy Ghost part of the split personality sat around eating popcorn, or perhaps provided special effects.

If your premise - that a universe exists where logic and natural properties and characteristics do not apply, then there may truly be somewhere that three is exactly equal to one and things mutually exclusive in a logical universe could exist together.  

Please change your worldview to Christian instead of logician - your logic only makes sense to people who accept an alternate universe where logic has a different definition - and those people are all Christians.  You probably see no contradiction in lying on your worldview and belonging to a religion which prohibits deception.

Wait!  Wait a minute.  Hang on.  I've just had an epiphany.  Fundamentalist Christians all believe in the alternate universe where contradictions are irrelevant and three is exactly equal to one and the properties and characteristics of the universe are not consistent throughout but are however you wish them to be wherever and whenever you wish.  Their idea of the universe also allows things to exist together which are mutually exclusive in ours.  That is why their Holy Book gives them rules such as "Thou Shalt Not Kill" then proceeds to give them the rules for killing and all the other contradictions to be found in it.  That is why they can follow a religion which frowns on deception yet practice it constantly.  It makes so much sense now - why Jesus told them to "Love thy neighbor" yet they often do the opposite. They must believe the rules of the universe with uniform properties and characteristics only apply to we who believe that the contradictory universe doesn't exist!

Quote from: "Messenger"Good question
here is the logic behind it
If God exists, he will be outside the Universe
which means he is not like anything inside it
Universal observations/laws can not apply to him (Only logic)
So the concept of complexity does not apply to him

Nope ...

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"]Does God Exist?
By
The Editor: UK Atheist & Science E-Zine (http://www.uktech.org.uk)

Introduction
Despite the fact that there is no evidence to support their existence many that make the claim that a god or gods exist ... for the remainder of this article such phenomena will all be referred to as God or god. In the case of Christianity, Judaism (Jehovah) or Islam (Allah) and, indeed, many other religions the god in question is an all powerful, divine force or entity that "created" or "is" or "contains" the universe and/or watches over it and/or permeates every aspect of our lives.

Discussion
To my knowledge there are no reliable instances of God being seen, heard, touched or smelt nor is it possible to design an experiment to test for its existence or non-existence. Available evidence at least implies that men wrote whatever religious scriptures currently exist and there is no evidence to indicate that a god or gods were involved in any way. In other words there is no physical or naturalistic evidence to support the existence of God/deity.

The accepted method of investigation (science) is to propose a clearly stated hypothesis and to support that hypothesis with evidence and reasoned logical deductions based upon the same. That is how science works and is the method by which humans have discovered things about our surroundings since we were able to reason. It is also understood that if a hypothesis does not "fit" in any way with other knowledge already accepted about our universe, if it cannot be supported by evidence and it cannot provide information about our universe previously unknown then it is assumed to have no value and is dismissed.

Given the above (and my statement in the second paragraph) I can draw the following assumptions to test or discuss:

1.   God is claimed to be an all powerful, divine entity, force or effect that watches over us and permeates every aspect of our lives.
2.   There exists no empirical (measurable physical or naturalistic) evidence to support the claimed existence of God that cannot be interpreted (or potentially so) in a different fashion.
3.   There are no reliable or verifiable instances of God being seen, heard, touched, smelt, tasted or otherwise observed.
4.   It is not possible to design an experiment to prove or disprove God's existence.
5.   Humans (it would seem) physically wrote whatever scriptures or other written material supporting the claimed actuality of God and there is no evidence to indicate the direct or indirect involvement of God.

On the basis that it is the supporters of the existence of a god or gods that are proposing the hypothesis that such a creator deity exists and that the natural human method of investigation results in the dismissal of untenable hypotheses then it is not unreasonable to request that the following be provided.

1.   Hard scientific evidence to support the claimed existence of whatever god or gods are being claimed to exist.
2.   Given that such evidence can, potentially at least, be provided an experiment designed to prove the existence of whatever god or gods are being claimed to exist and an indication of what kind of data would be required to disprove the existence of the same.
3.   Demonstrable evidence that whatever scriptures support the existence of the claimed god or gods were not (as is reasonably assumed) written and designed purely by men or women without divine involvement.

The universe may be defined as "the sum of all that exists" or "the physical system that is potentially observable" and, for the purpose of this discussion at least, can be considered fully interchangeable with the term "natural universe". Science is an ongoing attempt to explain the universe and in this respect has explained or is attempting to explain all that is observable. Whilst individual scientists are not always above reproach science, as a global force, is tentative in nature, cannot always consider its knowledge to be absolute & correct but is self-correcting in nature and therefore represents our best current understanding of the universe.

To be brutal God must be one of three states:
•   God exists
•   God does not exist or
•   God existed once but does not anymore (dead).

Though it is of academic interest if there once was a god but it exists no more it is beyond the scope of this discussion and typically theists do not claim this to be so. With that in mind I move on to the first two possibilities i.e. that God either exists or does not.

If God exists within the universe then it either is/will be observable, either directly or indirectly, by science or it exists outside of the universe. If all observable aspects of God exist outside of the universe then it is, by definition, supernatural and can have no impact on the universe or anything within it and, as such, science can safely discard it. If God is not supernatural then it, some part of it or something directly attributable to it must be observable in which case it is not supernatural but entirely or partially explainable.

If God is (in principle) entirely or partially explainable then it is not, by definition, supernatural but natural i.e. a part of the universe. If God exists wholly outside of the universe then there can be no observable evidence to support it's existence and no one has any reason to believe in it let alone try to convince others that God exists. If God exists within some gap in our scientific understanding of the universe then it is not only due to one day to be explained (such gaps will not remain open forever) but is also shrinking in size as our knowledge increases.

Logically therefore God must be one of the following:
•   Everywhere
•   Part of the explained universe
•   Part of the unexplained universe
•   Non-existent

God cannot exist within the parts of the universe we have explained ... if so God would have been explained (partially or wholly) and would therefore already be a part of the natural and explained universe. For the same reason God cannot be everywhere, for if it were it would be possible to observe and test some parts of it. If it is a part of the universe that we have not explained then it must be a "god of the gaps" i.e. it exists somewhere in the gaps of knowledge we have so far failed to explain. If, as pointed out above, that is true then every time we discover something new this "god of the gaps" gets a little smaller.

The final option is that God does not exist ... this needs no justification, no proof, no evidence.

Conclusion
It is evident that, if God exists and affects us, God must exist within the confines of our universe; by definition the universe is everything that is observable and can be considered a boundary across which information does not flow. If God does exist in our universe then God must be observable. Also if God was not observable then God cannot observe us. If God is not observable then it is impossible for anyone to have experienced the presence of God, so if God is unobservable then God cannot exist and anyone who ever claimed to have experienced god (personally or otherwise) has merely experienced a delusion.

There is no validatable evidence (that cannot be more reasonably interpreted) to support the existence of God so it is hard to see why any reasoning human being should consider that one should exist since our entire investment in knowledge (by which I refer to those things we "know" or have discovered about our universe) is based on empirical data. With that in mind and with specific (& somewhat cynical) reference to claims of a "god/gods of the gaps (which presumably is where God must exist in the absence of any other evidence) it must follow that at one point that god was potentially huge but nowadays is getting somewhat smaller ... indeed one imagines that the sceptic should be careful lest he tread on the apologetic's "god of the gaps" without realising it.

Richard Dawkins wrote "It is often said that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"

References
•   E-mail discussions with Iron Cestus.

So, given that (by definition) the universe is all there is and nothing can exist outside it, your god is nowhere.

Kyu

WoW! It looks so obvious a proof when  I read it but I wouldn't have come up with it! It certainly leaves some problems for theists I think. Even the FSM would have trouble passing this although I believe pasts you buy is actually part of his noodly appendages. heck, that doesn't work - he becomes part of the the known universe and dissappears in a puff of logic.

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"So, given that (by definition) the universe is all there is and nothing can exist outside it, your god is nowhere.

Kyu

Oooo!!

Let me formalize

1. The universe is all that exists
2. God exists outside the universe
3. Therefore god does not exist.

Perhaps for clarity's sake we should replace 'universe' with 'reality' to avoid confusion in contexts that consider multiverses to be possible. So :

• Reality is all that exists (definition)
• God exists outside reality
• Therefore god does not exist.

Quote from: "bowmore"1. The universe is all that exists
2. God exists outside the universe
3. Therefore god does not exist.

Perhaps for clarity's sake we should replace 'universe' with 'reality' to avoid confusion in contexts that consider multiverses to be possible. So :

• Reality is all that exists (definition)
• God exists outside reality
• Therefore god does not exist.

Your assumptions are not proved
but what we can be sure of is that
If God exists he will be outside/separate from the universe

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"but what we can be sure of is that
If God exists he will be outside/separate from the universe

And you reasoning that brings you there?

There is the problem that we cannot know anything beyond our reality (universe) so we have the joint problem of: -

1. How can we know there is a supernatural being outside our reality?
2. Were there such a being, how would it be able to interact with our reality bearing in mind that any supernatural being that is beyond our reality (such as Plato's god) is completely irrelevant to us and certainly does not need worship or prayer.

Quote from: "wheels5894"There is the problem that we cannot know anything beyond our reality (universe)

Not only we can, we can prove as well

Quoteso we have the joint problem of: -
1. How can we know there is a supernatural being outside our reality?
2. Were there such a being, how would it be able to interact with our reality bearing in mind that any supernatural being that is beyond our reality (such as Plato's god) is completely irrelevant to us and certainly does not need worship or prayer.

It can be proven, wait a bit

Quote from: "wheels5894"

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"but what we can be sure of is that
If God exists he will be outside/separate from the universe

And you reasoning that brings you there?

There is the problem that we cannot know anything beyond our reality (universe) so we have the joint problem of: -

1. How can we know there is a supernatural being outside our reality?
2. Were there such a being, how would it be able to interact with our reality bearing in mind that any supernatural being that is beyond our reality (such as Plato's god) is completely irrelevant to us and certainly does not need worship or prayer.

Please pay attention to your quoting : you've quoted me posting something I didn't post!

Quote from: "Messenger"Your assumptions are not proved
but what we can be sure of is that
If God exists he will be outside/separate from the universe

1 is a definition.
2 is your assumption
3 is the necessary conclusion.

But who am I to stop you from disagreeing with your own assumptions.  

Quote from: "bowmore"1. The universe is all that exists
2. God exists outside the universe
3. Therefore god does not exist.

Yes & no ... "God" could be in either but the fact that he hasn't been detected in it so far implies that he is, if he exists at all, outside. I think we can use universe because it is defined as all that exists so the argument encompasses the "multiverse" if they are ever demonstrated to exist with reasonable certainty.

Perhaps for clarity's sake we should replace 'universe' with 'reality' to avoid confusion in contexts that consider multiverses to be possible. So :

Kyu

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "wheels5894"There is the problem that we cannot know anything beyond our reality (universe)

Not only we can, we can prove as well

What you mean in the same way as you have spectacularly failed to disprove evolution? Well colour me shocked  

Quote from: "Messenger"Your assumptions are not proved
but what we can be sure of is that
If God exists he will be outside/separate from the universe

No one was claiming they are proved but the argument I posted (another one you haven't bothered to deal with) is streets ahead of anything in terms of logic & reasoning than ANYTHING you have posted in this thread. Based on the fact that this is the SECOND article of mine you have avoided I can only assume you are terrified of the metaphorical kicking I will give you if you try.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Perhaps for clarity's sake we should replace 'universe' with 'reality' to avoid confusion in contexts that consider multiverses to be possible. So

Yes, we can say Reality=Universe + G  (And G could be nothing or something) (Also G could be God or anything else)
Then we can look for a proof that G is not nothing
Then look for a proof that G=God

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Yes & no ... "God" could be in either but the fact that he hasn't been detected in it so far implies that he is, if he exists at all, outside. I think we can use universe because it is defined as all that exists so the argument encompasses the "multiverse" if they are ever demonstrated to exist with reasonable certainty.

The main point of the argument is that anyone who claims that a god exists outside 'everything that exists' immediately concedes that god does not exist.

Quote from: "bowmore"The main point of the argument is that anyone who claims that a god exists outside 'everything that exists' immediately concedes that god does not exist.

Totally wrong assumption as it depends on:
We have 100% confidence that the universe is all what exists

This is a very good example for circular logic

    Nothing exists outside the universe --------> As god will be outside the universe ------> God does not exist ---->
So nothing exists outside the universe --------> As God will be outside the universe ------> God does not exist ---->

Thanks for being a role model for circular logic (Atheism)  

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"The main point of the argument is that anyone who claims that a god exists outside 'everything that exists' immediately concedes that god does not exist.

Totally wrong assumption as it depends on:
We have 100% confidence that the universe is all what exists

This is a very good example for circular logic

    Nothing exists outside the universe --------> As god will be outside the universe ------> God does not exist ---->
So nothing exists outside the universe --------> As God will be outside the universe ------> God does not exist ---->

No you misunderstand.
If we define reality/the universe to be all that exists, then anyone claiming god to exist ouside reality, concedes that god does not exist.

This does not mean that reality/the universe cannot be defined differently.

I don't think our definitions are that different, and I also don't think you claim god exists outside reality since you posted

Quotereality = universe + g

Then it is clear that you do not claim g to exist outside reality, and also that universe is not necessarily all the exists (but reality is).

Hope that clarifies what I mean.

Quote from: "Messenger"Thanks for being a role model for circular logic (Atheism)  

How do you arrive at :

QuoteGod does not exist ----> So nothing exists outside the universe

this is  a non sequitur.

Quote from: "bowmore"I don't think our definitions are that different, and I also don't think you claim god exists outside reality since you posted

Quotereality = universe + g

Then it is clear that you do not claim g to exist outside reality, and also that universe is not necessarily all the exists (but reality is).
Hope that clarifies what I mean.

Glad that we agree on something  

QuoteHow do you arrive at :

QuoteGod does not exist ----> So nothing exists outside the universe

As God can only exist outside U, if nothing exists outside he does not exists

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteHow do you arrive at :

QuoteGod does not exist ----> So nothing exists outside the universe

As God can only exist outside U, if nothing exists outside he does not exists

See this is exactly why I have strong doubts about your logical skills.

Look at the conclusion of your explanation : "As God can only exist outside U, if nothing exists outside he does not exists" This is not what needed explaining, it the starting point in "God does not exist ----> So nothing exists outside the universe"
You have actually explained why "Nothing exists outside the universe  ---->  God does not exist" i.e. the other way around.

If turning around implications would be allowed, it would be easy to show most arguments to be circular  

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Perhaps for clarity's sake we should replace 'universe' with 'reality' to avoid confusion in contexts that consider multiverses to be possible. So

Yes, we can say Reality=Universe + G  (And G could be nothing or something) (Also G could be God or anything else)
Then we can look for a proof that G is not nothing
Then look for a proof that G=God

If G is nothing then fine but it equally well be X, Y X, Z, F, M & N also equalling nothing ... but if you're saying there is a G then YOU MUST PROVE IT!!!! IOW your calculation is complete and utter bollocks!

Kyu

The universe we know is based on "emptiness" and this:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flibrary.thinkquest.org%2F3616%2Fchem%2Fperiodic.gif&hash=44157a9b338e3b903d57c7a3f747ff2f03274c80)

As "G" is not on the table, G does not exist.  

Why is anyone even trying to argue with this joker?  It's pretty obvious Messenger knows nothing at all about logic, can't frame a proper argument, is incapable of reading and comprehending other people's arguments, has little to no formal education, apparently is incapable of comprehending much beyond some fundie websites, and has no other purpose than to spout utter nonsense in defense of a nonexistent figment of his/her imagination.

After half a dozen threads of Messenger's unfortunate and pathetic attempts to proselytize, I'm surprised anyone is bothering to give him/her/it the time of day.  Yep, I'm a big meanie atheist and I'm not in the mood for circular logic today.

And lastly, Messenger, you keep telling us to wait and you'll prove god to us.  That's bullshit.  Either you have proof or you don't.  So lay your so-called proof out on the table for examination, or go play somewhere else.

Quote from: "Faithless"Why is anyone even trying to argue with this joker?  It's pretty obvious Messenger knows nothing at all about logic, can't frame a proper argument, is incapable of reading and comprehending other people's arguments, has little to no formal education, apparently is incapable of comprehending much beyond some fundie websites, and has no other purpose than to spout utter nonsense in defense of a nonexistent figment of his/her imagination.

After half a dozen threads of Messenger's unfortunate and pathetic attempts to proselytize, I'm surprised anyone is bothering to give him/her/it the time of day.  Yep, I'm a big meanie atheist and I'm not in the mood for circular logic today.

And lastly, Messenger, you keep telling us to wait and you'll prove god to us.  That's bullshit.  Either you have proof or you don't.  So lay your so-called proof out on the table for examination, or go play somewhere else.

I'm on your sheet of music with you, Faithless. See my post regarding his ban. I got tired of his incessant babbling and failure to comply with forum rules. We'll see if a "time out" helps.

Quote from: "Messenger"As God can only exist outside U, if nothing exists outside he does not exists

Yes, that is true (if you can prove it)

The correct path is to prove if something exist outside the universe or not
Which I can prove that there must be something (We can refer to it now as G)

Then the next step is to prove if G=God or something else

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Messenger"As God can only exist outside U, if nothing exists outside he does not exists

Yes, that is true (if you can prove it)

The correct path is to prove if something exist outside the universe or not
Which I can prove that there must be something (We can refer to it now as G)

Then the next step is to prove if G=God or something else

You haven't proven G is yet.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Messenger"As God can only exist outside U, if nothing exists outside he does not exists

Yes, that is true (if you can prove it)

The correct path is to prove if something exist outside the universe or not
Which I can prove that there must be something (We can refer to it now as G)

Then the next step is to prove if G=God or something else

You haven't proven G is yet.

Kyu

No, he hasn't. Messenger, please show us your proof for 'G'

Quote from: "McQ"I'm on your sheet of music with you, Faithless. See my post regarding his ban. I got tired of his incessant babbling and failure to comply with forum rules. We'll see if a "time out" helps.

I think you should add another rule for this forum

"Any theist with strong arguments against Atheism should be banned"

You can allow people with weak arguments, so you can practice your blind religion (Atheism)

I can understand Athiests who are looking for the truth, but who blindly believe in Atheism are very weir

It is like defending and encouraging unemployment  

Quote from: "Messenger"You can allow people with weak arguments, so you can practice your blind religion (Atheism)

Arguments for Atheism being a religion, please..?

Quote from: "Messenger"I can understand Athiests who are looking for the truth, but who blindly believe in Atheism are very weir

Arguments for "Blindly", please

Quote from: "Messenger"It is like defending and encouraging unemployment  

Do you have anything solid to support that statement and to support the comparison?

Quote from: "Asmodean"Arguments for Atheism being a religion, please..?

As ZERO is a number, no religion is a religion
In English we can say, Done by nobody=not done  So Believing in No God=Not believing

QuoteArguments for "Blindly", please

A blind belief is when somebody defend his beliefs, despite refutations and proofs

QuoteDo you have anything solid to support that statement and to support the comparison?

Same as above
Non-employment=Employed by nobody
It is only if you can prove No God then you can defend your position, for now you should look for the truth

Quote from: "Messenger"As ZERO is a number, no religion is a religion

Messenger, I think you just disproved your own statement. Zero is a number we use it to identify a lack of quantity.  However, no religion cannot be a religion.  Don't you see where your statement doesn't make sense?  Look at it this way, is no hair (bald) a hair color?  Of course not.  Atheism is a religion only as much as bald is a hair color.  

That said, an atheist could be religious.  For instance, many Buddhists are atheists but are religious due to their buddhist beliefs.  The Ralians (sp) are religious atheists because, while they don't believe in a god, they do believe that aliens creaated us and have organized a ritual around that belief.  However, the large majority of those who describe themselves as atheist are not religious.

Btw, if we are only allowed to debate gods if we can definately prove one exists or not; then both sides should be quiet.  The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.  If I told you that I believe a giant cat lives on the moon you would demand that I show you proof before you'd accept my claim.  But what if I told you, no I have faith that a giant cat lives on the moon and so do all these other people.  YOU! have to prove to me that a giant cat does not live on the moon...btw, he's invisible and only selectively communicates with his chosen few but we all know he loves us.  I bet you'd think I was crazy and didn't understand logic; but it's differnet with your giant cat, your giant cat (god) is 'real.'

Dude, you are a terrible logician.  

Quote from: "Messenger"I think you should add another rule for this forum

"Any theist with strong arguments against Atheism should be banned"

That's funny!  If that rule were to be instituted, and if you complied with the other rules of the forum, you could stay here indefinitely, from what I've seen of your arguments.  And I think I've read most of them.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Asmodean"Arguments for Atheism being a religion, please..?

As ZERO is a number, no religion is a religion
In English we can say, Done by nobody=not done  So Believing in No God=Not believing

QuoteArguments for "Blindly", please

A blind belief is when somebody defend his beliefs, despite refutations and proofs

QuoteDo you have anything solid to support that statement and to support the comparison?

Same as above
Non-employment=Employed by nobody
It is only if you can prove No God then you can defend your position, for now you should look for the truth

What?  I think you must be typing faster than you can think because your arguments make no sense?

No religion is a religion - NO! No religion is lack of any religion.

Non-employment = Employed by nobody - What? That one is total nonsense, I can't even correct it.

You can only defend your belief if you can prove God doesn't exist?  No person can determine what another believes.

I thought this guy was gone - sounds like messenger needs a hobby and a little book-learnin"  

Getting back to the topic

I claimed that the normal (correct) way of thinking would lead to God

What are your objections, regarding this matter only?

Quote from: "Messenger"Getting back to the topic

I claimed that the normal (correct) way of thinking would lead to God

What are your objections, regarding this matter only?

Proof that normal equals correct please?

Kyu

Remember.... the masses following everything else thought Milli Vanilli was a good idea.

In Nazi Germany antisemitism was normal. Were they correct?

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Messenger"Getting back to the topic

I claimed that the normal (correct) way of thinking would lead to God

What are your objections, regarding this matter only?

Proof that normal equals correct please?

Kyu

Beautifully stated, Kyuuketsuki.

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Proof that normal equals correct please?

This is another subject, This thread in not about proving God
It is about your claim that "Believing in God is ridiculous"

If you see every thing in the universe is following the rule "More complexity means 1-Creation 2-More intelligence"
Would that leads normally to believe in a very intelligent creator or not?

Maybe it does not prove it, but it is very near to that

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Proof that normal equals correct please?

This is another subject, This thread in not about proving God

Nope ... YOU are the one that advanced this, I am simply asking you to justify your assertion ... please do so.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Nope ... YOU are the one that advanced this, I am simply asking you to justify your assertion ... please do so.

This thread is more like a question not a proof

If you eat apples and every time you eat a red apple you find it sweeter and every time you eat a one that its color towards green you find it not
Would you assume (with a high probability) that sweetness relates to redness or not?

No one of you answered this question; are you afraid?  

Then, if every complicated thing we see in the Universe  we find that it is made by some intelligence and this intelligence relates to the degree of sophistication;
Would that make us think that the Universe is made by a very high intelligence?

Quote from: "Messenger"Then, if every complicated thing we see in the Universe  we find that it is made by some intelligence and this intelligence relates to the degree of sophistication;
Would that make us think that the Universe is made by a very high intelligence?

I wonder : how do you measure/define complexity in this context?

BTW would a person who is more intelligent than his parents, not simply refute your alleged observation? i.e. we can observe lesser intelligence yielding higher intelligence.

Quote from: "bowmore"I wonder : how do you measure/define complexity in this context?

BTW would a person who is more intelligent than his parents, not simply refute your alleged observation? i.e. we can observe lesser intelligence yielding higher intelligence.

read the first post
I don't believe that parents make their children

We have in the universe many kinds of causes and their actions/products
Human, Animals, plants, Nature
We can see clearly that human products is more complex and sophisticated than Animals than insects, than Nature

But human organs are more complex than human's products, this lead normally to think that human are created by higher intelligence

Quote from: "Messenger"read the first post

HYPOCRITE!!!!! You don't read others posts, why should they read yours?

Kyu

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"I wonder : how do you measure/define complexity in this context?

BTW would a person who is more intelligent than his parents, not simply refute your alleged observation? i.e. we can observe lesser intelligence yielding higher intelligence.

read the first post

I see no definition of complexity there, or a way of measuring it.

Quote from: "Messenger"I don't believe that parents make their children

?? Your thread strongly appeals to what we observe, yet you are quick to dismiss observation when it contradicts your position.
I guess you propose children are created magically?

Quote from: "Messenger"We have in the universe many kinds of causes and their actions/products
Human, Animals, plants, Nature
We can see clearly that human products is more complex and sophisticated than Animals than insects, than Nature

But human organs are more complex than human's products, this lead normally to think that human are created by higher intelligence

Again, how do we measure this objectively? By what definition?

Quote from: "bowmore"I guess you propose children are created magically?

Didn't you know? It's totally magical!

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgourmetjunk.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F07%2Fstork-2.jpg&hash=2e3bbbe6b11fd4d5775aa54b13c10a1fac9ba5fe)

It definitely has nothing to do with biology, sexual intercourse, or millions upon millions of years of evolution. That would be... beyond comprehension! Thus, impossible!

 

Quote from: "Messenger"Then, if every complicated thing we see in the Universe we find that it is made by some intelligence and this intelligence relates to the degree of sophistication;
Would that make us think that the Universe is made by a very high intelligence?

If this is your "logic" then what made god? He's suppose to be more complicated than the universe, no? So then, logically (according to Messenger) something intelligent had to design him. Of course theists always say that God always existed and was never created. Well I believe the universe or something that sparked the universe has always existed and was never created. Only I imagine it was something simple that evolved into what we see. You believe something magical and complex waved a magic wand.

Logicans don't tend to believe in the supernatural.  :D

Quote from: "Messenger"Then, if every complicated thing we see in the Universe  we find that it is made by some intelligence and this intelligence relates to the degree of sophistication;
Would that make us think that the Universe is made by a very high intelligence?

Snowflakes are complex yet not made by intelligence.

http://www.livescience.com/mysteries/07 ... ation.html (http://www.livescience.com/mysteries/070119_snowflake_formation.html)

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsyzen.com%2Fimages%2Fsnowflake.jpg&hash=aa12cf5094cc5034e1b23d58b689f77eb4943961)

Maybe you should rethink your stance.

QuoteNow, let's compare this to the Universe
We see that more complex things require more intelligence to be made, for example
1- A rock
2- An almost straight tree branch
3- A ball made out of clay
4- A nest
5- A Robot

This is incorrect. Weather systems are extremely complex. Ecosystems are mind-bogglingly complex. And a tree branch is more complex than a ball of clay.

We don't determine whether something is designed based on its complexity. We base it on evidence of designed purpose, such as the numbers found on a watch.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteArguments for "Blindly", please

A blind belief is when somebody defend his beliefs, despite refutations and proofs

So, by messenger's own words, the definition of "blind belief" is messenger. Since messenger is someone "defending his beliefs, despite refutations and proofs."

No, but seriously, I almost feel sorry for this kid. I'm assuming this person is a child, due to their lack of anything resembling a coherent thought or argument. If not, then I hope they are posting from a mental institution. So many intelligent arguments from one side, and on the other side, one kid just getting owned. It's too bad so many intelligent arguments were wasted on such an amazingly feeble mind.

Quote from: "Loffler"

QuoteNow, let's compare this to the Universe
We see that more complex things require more intelligence to be made, for example
1- A rock
2- An almost straight tree branch
3- A ball made out of clay
4- A nest
5- A Robot

This is incorrect. Weather systems are extremely complex. Ecosystems are mind-bogglingly complex. And a tree branch is more complex than a ball of clay.

We don't determine whether something is designed based on its complexity. We base it on evidence of designed purpose, such as the numbers found on a watch.

Ok, we can change the word complex to sophisticated and doing its purpose

Quote from: "Messenger"We don't determine whether something is designed based on its complexity. We base it on evidence of designed purpose, such as the numbers found on a watch.

Ok, we can change the word complex to sophisticated and doing its purpose[/quote]

Oh, so it's word games now is it? Exactly what is unsophisticated about snowflakes or clouds?

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Messenger"We don't determine whether something is designed based on its complexity. We base it on evidence of designed purpose, such as the numbers found on a watch.

Ok, we can change the word complex to sophisticated and doing its purpose

Oh, so it's word games now is it? Exactly what is unsophisticated about snowflakes or clouds?[/quote]
They don't need complex operation to be made and it does not have a purpose related to its structure

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Messenger"We don't determine whether something is designed based on its complexity. We base it on evidence of designed purpose, such as the numbers found on a watch.

Ok, we can change the word complex to sophisticated and doing its purpose

Oh, so it's word games now is it? Exactly what is unsophisticated about snowflakes or clouds?

They don't need complex operation to be made and it does not have a purpose related to its structure[/quote]

And exactly who defines whether something has a a purpose or not?

You're just changing the rules to suit your own conclusions ... you would make an exceptionally poor scientist.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"you would make an exceptionally poor scientist.

And logician!

BA-ZING!!  

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Loffler"

QuoteNow, let's compare this to the Universe
We see that more complex things require more intelligence to be made, for example
1- A rock
2- An almost straight tree branch
3- A ball made out of clay
4- A nest
5- A Robot

This is incorrect. Weather systems are extremely complex. Ecosystems are mind-bogglingly complex. And a tree branch is more complex than a ball of clay.

We don't determine whether something is designed based on its complexity. We base it on evidence of designed purpose, such as the numbers found on a watch.

Ok, we can change the word complex to sophisticated and doing its purpose

Yes, and thereby abandon your above hierarchy, since only two of those things have a designed purpose (nest and robot).

Quote from: "Loffler"Yes, and thereby abandon your above hierarchy, since only two of those things have a designed purpose (nest and robot).

You should add probability here
A stick or a ball may have a purpose, so it is maybe made by intelligence
Based on every single example in the universe, it is made by intelligence with very high probability

Quote from: "Messenger"Based on every single example in the universe, it is made by intelligence with very high probability

No it isn't.

So there.

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "Messenger"Based on every single example in the universe, it is made by intelligence with very high probability

No it isn't.

So there.

Normal answer
As you can not give a subjective answer, you can assert
It is always like this Christians=Atheists

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Loffler"Yes, and thereby abandon your above hierarchy, since only two of those things have a designed purpose (nest and robot).

You should add probability here
A stick or a ball may have a purpose, so it is maybe made by intelligence

You are correct. A stick and a ball will have purpose just as soon as you Christians get around to finally presenting your evidence.

You're confusing premise and conclusion.

QuoteBased on every single example in the universe, it is made by intelligence with very high probability

The difference in atheists and Christians is we atheists don't have baseless assumptions like this. And then you go and base your entire belief system on it.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "Messenger"Based on every single example in the universe, it is made by intelligence with very high probability

No it isn't.

So there.

Normal answer
As you can not give a subjective answer, you can assert
It is always like this Christians=Atheists

If you find yourself pondering the reason why we will sometimes neglect to provide you with logical explanations, it is because we know you'll just end up ignoring it.  Reason doesn't seem to work on you. But I'll voluntarily exhaust myself on this issue:

If Douglas Adams were here he would call you a puddle. Simply because you have observed that man makes things, it doesn't mean every made thing was made by a being. In fact we have discovered many of these "makers" via science. These are the natural laws of course. Are you suggesting something made the makers? Or are the makers just bullocks too?