chance

[Thinking Aloud]

What evidence do the atheists have that we are here by chance?

What evidence do theists have that we are not?

This is called changing the subject.

Yup!

[Feck]

Why ?

[spinoza99]

As I said, your argument from ignorance holds no sway here.
I'm not going down the rabbit hole with you. It doesn't matter what answer is given because you don't want answers. You'll just keep moving one step back. For each explanation given you will say, "Well what caused that?" And so on and once an answer can't be given to your satisfaction you will say, "Ha! You can't explain why. Therefore - God. I win. Ha ha ha." Like a little child. You already decided what the answer to everything is so why bother asking questions?

On the contrary, if you want to say that the Big Bang is the result of chance or the universe is the result of chance, I will accept that but present evidence for your belief. So far you have presented no evidence, therefore, your atheist faith rests on a foundation without evidence.

As for the argument from ignorance, you're assuming everything has a material cause. You're arguments have the structure:
1. everything has a material cause
2. therefore, if I don't know what the material cause is, then I know that it is material.

This is complete circular reasoning.

My argument that language does not have a material cause, is an argument from knowledge. We know that material obeys laws and language cannot possibly be the result of natural laws because natural laws produce repetitive patterns and language is not repetitive.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

As I said, your argument from ignorance holds no sway here.
I'm not going down the rabbit hole with you. It doesn't matter what answer is given because you don't want answers. You'll just keep moving one step back. For each explanation given you will say, "Well what caused that?" And so on and once an answer can't be given to your satisfaction you will say, "Ha! You can't explain why. Therefore - God. I win. Ha ha ha." Like a little child. You already decided what the answer to everything is so why bother asking questions?

On the contrary, if you want to say that the Big Bang is the result of chance or the universe is the result of chance, I will accept that but present evidence for your belief. So far you have presented no evidence, therefore, your atheist faith rests on a foundation without evidence.

As for the argument from ignorance, you're assuming everything has a material cause. You're arguments have the structure:
1. everything has a material cause
2. therefore, if I don't know what the material cause is, then I know that it is material.

This is complete circular reasoning.

My argument that language does not have a material cause, is an argument from knowledge. We know that material obeys laws and language cannot possibly be the result of natural laws because natural laws produce repetitive patterns and language is not repetitive.

You never addressed my first post in this thread.

You are asking for evidence for the null hypothesis - which is the default position that one adopts when there is no evidence for anything else! YOU are the one that is claiming that there is anything other than random chance at the heart of the universe - the burden of proof is therefore on YOU.

Unless I am shown clear evidence that there is any causal mechanism at work, I will default to chance - that is not the same as BELIEVING it is chance, simply a state of having no reason to think otherwise.

[Mr P]

What part of "no-one knows" didn't you understand?

No one knows is an argument form agnosticism. If you want to say no one knows then call yourself an agnostic.

Meh... labels. If semantics is your only fall back then that just highlights the weakness of your position.

[Feck]

why ?

[Animavore]

As I said, your argument from ignorance holds no sway here.
I'm not going down the rabbit hole with you. It doesn't matter what answer is given because you don't want answers. You'll just keep moving one step back. For each explanation given you will say, "Well what caused that?" And so on and once an answer can't be given to your satisfaction you will say, "Ha! You can't explain why. Therefore - God. I win. Ha ha ha." Like a little child. You already decided what the answer to everything is so why bother asking questions?

On the contrary, if you want to say that the Big Bang is the result of chance or the universe is the result of chance, I will accept that but present evidence for your belief. So far you have presented no evidence, therefore, your atheist faith rests on a foundation without evidence.

As for the argument from ignorance, you're assuming everything has a material cause. You're arguments have the structure:
1. everything has a material cause
2. therefore, if I don't know what the material cause is, then I know that it is material.

This is complete circular reasoning.

My argument that language does not have a material cause, is an argument from knowledge. We know that material obeys laws and language cannot possibly be the result of natural laws because natural laws produce repetitive patterns and language is not repetitive.

No. It is not an argument from knowledge. Unless you are trying to claim to have access to knowledge the rest of us are denied. Your argument is a belief - nothing else.
I don't have a belief. Not even one that the big bang comes from chance despite your claim. This was explained to you already which leads me to believe you are a troll trying to wind me up.

I don't know what caused the universe or why we have language. You are the one claiming knowledge here - not me.

All I do know is that in all of human history every single supernatural explanation we have given to anything turned out to be completely false and I see no reason for this not to continue which means reality is on my side - not yours. This in not circular reasoning at all. This is going by the evidence so far. There is no valid reason to think an immaterial cause is behind anything and nothing to warrant thinking that way.

Now unless you can give me an example of one thing people thought was natural but it turned out not to be the case you haven't got a leg to stand on and no rationale for your belief.

[spinoza99]

You are asking for evidence for the null hypothesis - which is the default position that one adopts when there is no evidence for anything else! YOU are the one that is claiming that there is anything other than random chance at the heart of the universe - the burden of proof is therefore on YOU.
Unless I am shown clear evidence that there is any causal mechanism at work, I will default to chance - that is not the same as BELIEVING it is chance, simply a state of having no reason to think otherwise.

Chance is not the default hypothesis for origins of worlds. What makes you think chance is the default hypothesis? Every phenomenon is the result of chance, natural law or design. None of the three hold as a default hypothesis for any phenomenon.

If you want my honest opinion, the only evidence we have for whether the Big Bang was the result of chance or not is the enormous fine-tuning. Lambda, for example, must be tuned to 120 orders of magnitude, to give you an idea of how large that is, there are 80 orders of magnitude for atoms in the universe.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... stant.html

[Svartalf]

what do you expect from a guy who seems to believe that it's an act of divine intent each time a volcano explodes and the lava happens to cool down into rock that includes crystalline structures.

Those are the result of natural laws. But God is the author of Natural Law.

and what evidence do you have that your god authored those laws?

How do you know it was not the FSM moving atoms into the proper structure with its noodly appendages?

[Feck]

why ? oh and

[Mr P]

You are asking for evidence for the null hypothesis - which is the default position that one adopts when there is no evidence for anything else! YOU are the one that is claiming that there is anything other than random chance at the heart of the universe - the burden of proof is therefore on YOU.
Unless I am shown clear evidence that there is any causal mechanism at work, I will default to chance - that is not the same as BELIEVING it is chance, simply a state of having no reason to think otherwise.

Chance is not the default hypothesis for origins of worlds. What makes you think chance is the default hypothesis? Every phenomenon is the result of chance, natural law or design. None of the three hold as a default hypothesis for any phenomenon.

If you want my honest opinion, the only evidence we have for whether the Big Bang was the result of chance or not is the enormous fine-tuning. Lambda, for example, must be tuned to 120 orders of magnitude, to give you an idea of how large that is, there are 80 orders of magnitude for atoms in the universe.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... stant.html

How do you know that there is no underlying mechanism that controls this.

You're really going to have to do better than argument from ignorance.

[Svartalf]

What part of "no-one knows" didn't you understand?

No one knows is an argument form agnosticism. If you want to say no one knows then call yourself an agnostic.

Meh... labels. If semantics is your only fall back then that just highlights the weakness of your position.

Note, he says that 'no one knows' pleads for agnosticism, yet he believes, therefore he KNOWS

C'mon spinny, cough up that precious knowledge you're hiding.

[spinoza99]

I don't know what caused the universe

Then why do you call yourself an atheist? Is there a possibility that it was the result of intention?

[I don't know] why we have language.

Then why do you know that it's caused by purely material means.

All I do know is that in all of human history every single supernatural explanation we have given to anything turned out to be completely false and I see no reason for this not to continue which means reality is on my side - not yours.

You've already admitted that you don't know where language comes from. Therefore you're reasoning is as follows:
1. I don't know where language comes from
2. Therefore, I know it does not come from non-material sources.

Now unless you can give me an example of one thing people thought was natural but it turned out not to be the case you haven't got a leg to stand on and no rationale for your belief.

I already did, language, and you're response was an assumption: I don't know but I know that everything has a material cause.

[Feck]

no seriously WHY ?

Lame argument Lame thread Why ?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You are asking for evidence for the null hypothesis - which is the default position that one adopts when there is no evidence for anything else! YOU are the one that is claiming that there is anything other than random chance at the heart of the universe - the burden of proof is therefore on YOU.
Unless I am shown clear evidence that there is any causal mechanism at work, I will default to chance - that is not the same as BELIEVING it is chance, simply a state of having no reason to think otherwise.

Chance is not the default hypothesis for origins of worlds. What makes you think chance is the default hypothesis? Every phenomenon is the result of chance, natural law or design. None of the three hold as a default hypothesis for any phenomenon.

If you want my honest opinion, the only evidence we have for whether the Big Bang was the result of chance or not is the enormous fine-tuning. Lambda, for example, must be tuned to 120 orders of magnitude, to give you an idea of how large that is, there are 80 orders of magnitude for atoms in the universe.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... stant.html

Ah. The fine-tuned universe argument. I think Adams' puddle answers that one satisfactorily enough. The fact that we are here because the laws of physics allow it does not imply that the laws of physics were in any way designed with us in mind, or even that they were designed at all, only that, being what they are, the laws of physics allow our kind of life in our kind of universe to exist.