Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Help me further my understanding (pt. 1)

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 6:45:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Right now I believe it's more plausibly true than false that God exists. I'm thinking of starting a series on every argument that I find to be plausible for God's existence (apparent design, objective morality, origin of specified-complex information in DNA, argument from contingency, the foundation of reality as being fundamentally mental, and NDE's as evidence for an afterlife). I'll give my reasons for why I find it most plausible. If you can lessen the plausibility of God's existence to an extent that atheism is the more plausible worldview, I'll become an atheist.

Reasons for belief in God (part 1). God is defined as the intelligent creator of the universe.

(1) the appearance of design in nature. Nature appears to be designed because (A) things in nature appear to act as means towards ends, (B) the odds of life-permitting constants in the universe being set by chance are so great that it's unfeasable to have occurred by chance, and (C) the fluid interconnectivity of the universe as a complex whole.

(A) I'll start off by saying that a reason is a means towards some end. If the universe and everything within it arose by unembodied processes, nothing that we observe in nature can occur for any reason. This means that our organs, the water cycle, the sun, trees, and everything else imaginable has no reason at all for existing (as an actual state of affairs.)

I find this very hard to believe. It certainly appears that things in the universe actually exist as a means towards some end. For example the heart appears to serve a specific end: to circulate oxygenated blood throughout the body to sustain the organism. The water cycle appears to be the means by which water can be purified, recycled, and distributed throughout planet earth. Trees seem to act towards an end by regulating the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide content in the air. Sure, we can make descriptions of phenomena that we see occurring without God, but all we could say is that these things are the means for some action. In that case, we could just as credibly say that the reason the heart exists is to beat against the chest cavity, the water cycle is a process for making the ground wet, and the reason trees exist is to burrow their roots in the ground. All of these are descriptions of the things I listed (as a means for some action). Things in nature don't appear to be just means for action though. They appear to serve various reasons (means towards ends) as described.

So in order to convince me otherwise on this point you would have to either (1) show me that unembodied processes logically can and do act towards ends, (2) show me that unembodied processes strongly appear to act towards ends but in reality do not (by providing sufficient counter-examples), or (3) somehow convince me that things do not appear to act as a means toward an end. Remember, I'm making the claim that things in nature appear to *act as a means towards an end* as an actual state of affairs. The most plausible explanation, as I see it, is that they do.

(B) the incomprehensible odds of the life-permitting conditions of the universe occurring by chance. There are three ways that things occur: (1) by chance, (2) by physical necessity, or (3) by design.

(2) can be ruled out because the values and constants that govern our universe could be different. There's no reason to think that they are set necessarily. From what I understand most of the constants were set during the expansion of the Big Bang. Possibly I'm misunderstanding what it means by "physical necessity" so I'm open to this idea (although I'm aware that virtually nobody accepts that the universe exists by physical necessity).

(1) the odds of the life-permitting conditions in the universe being set by chance are so infinitesimally small it seems that it would never occur by chance. However, if it's *possible* that the values are what are they are by chance, design is not a necessary explanation. Is there more than one universe? Could we ever determine that this universe is tailored to the life-permitting values that we're observing a posteriori? (the sharpshooter fallacy from what I recall double R explaining). I accept that the universe could have the life-permitting values that it does by chance. The question becomes: is it more plausible that these values were set by chance or by design? A very very unlikely occurrence doesn't necessarily infer design. The odds of a man getting hit with a meteorite is in excess of billions to 1. If this event happens nobody would claim that design played a role. But are the life-permitting conditions of the universe just another odd amongst many in that 1 in 10^120th chance? I don't believe so because (1) the life-permitting conditions consist of independent alignments of multi-variat constants and "life-permitting" is a unique effect to the exclusion of all other possibilities. I know that most people probably hate the watchmaker analogy but I see it as being analogous to the life-permitting constants in the universe. A watch is composed of independent and complex parts that result in a specific effect (the accurate telling of time). The life-permitting constants of the universe are composed independent of one another in a complex framework and results in a specific effect (the life-permitting values). But what if the "specific effect" wasn't specific at all? What if it wasn't an intended consequence that life was able to arise with these perfect conditions? It's *possible* but I don't see it as *plausible*. The most plausible theory should be an inference to the best explanation. The best explanation is one that matches the data when pitted against other hypothesis'. You could change my mind on this by (1) by showing me evidence that more than one universe exists, (2) that the multi-variat and independent variables aligning to allow for this "specific" effect (life) are just as likely as any other non-specific odds (examples demonstrating multi-variat odds that produced a certain effect by chance would be good) or (3) that an intelligent designer is somehow not a feasible explanation for the life-permitting odds. (Or other).

(C) the fluid interconnectivity of the universe as a whole.

Things in nature have reciprocal relationships despite acting independent of one another. When we consider the degree of the interdependence amongst relationships allowing sustainance of the whole, it's an elaborate ecosystem made of many independent parts. There is an "organizing factor" to being made up of many independent but interlocking parts. This lends credibility to the notion that the universe was intended to be actualized as a whole. This one is harder for me to explain and I'm running low on char space so I won't elaborate on this one for now.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 3:34:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 6:45:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Right now I believe it's more plausibly true than false that God exists. I'm thinking of starting a series on every argument that I find to be plausible for God's existence (apparent design, objective morality, origin of specified-complex information in DNA, argument from contingency, the foundation of reality as being fundamentally mental, and NDE's as evidence for an afterlife). I'll give my reasons for why I find it most plausible. If you can lessen the plausibility of God's existence to an extent that atheism is the more plausible worldview, I'll become an atheist.

Reasons for belief in God (part 1). God is defined as the intelligent creator of the universe.
.....etc.......

Atheism basically claims that all gods are mythical and no gods exist in REALITY.

Whether a character named God exists in REALITY or not depends on how you personally define and perceive the word GOD.

Take a look at your own words and as an exercise in logic just replace the word God with the word Mother Nature.
Your argument applies to Mother Nature in exactly the same way as it applies to your God. Does that mean Mother Nature more than likely exists? Your argument could apply to all mythical gods with imaginary supernatural powers. Therefore how is the argument exclusive in any way to some exclusive supernatural "Father God" who is supposedly the creator of the universe when Mother Nature could just as easily be that creator?

In reality LIFE is not created by some supernatural entity but by LIFE itself.
LIFE itself IS the creator of LIFE.
It really makes no difference how people PERSONIFY LIFE or what name they give to it. LIFE by any other name still does exactly the same as it always has done for all eternity through its MANY CYCLES.
LIFE is a REALITY which can be observed at work daily.
Call it God or Mother Nature or Zeus if you like. Your arguments apply to LIFE itself in reality and do not prove that any invisible characters exist at all.
Trying to prove God most likely exists is no different to trying to prove Mother Nature most likely exists.
You CANNOT prove the character exists when the character is nothing but a PERSONIFICATION of a PROCESS, a PRINCIPLE, an ENERGY.

The character remains fictional in spite of the character REPRESENTING something in reality.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 4:14:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 6:45:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Right now I believe it's more plausibly true than false that God exists. I'm thinking of starting a series on every argument that I find to be plausible for God's existence (apparent design, objective morality, origin of specified-complex information in DNA, argument from contingency, the foundation of reality as being fundamentally mental, and NDE's as evidence for an afterlife). I'll give my reasons for why I find it most plausible. If you can lessen the plausibility of God's existence to an extent that atheism is the more plausible worldview, I'll become an atheist.

Reasons for belief in God (part 1). God is defined as the intelligent creator of the universe.

(1) the appearance of design in nature. Nature appears to be designed because (A) things in nature appear to act as means towards ends, (B) the odds of life-permitting constants in the universe being set by chance are so great that it's unfeasable to have occurred by chance, and (C) the fluid interconnectivity of the universe as a complex whole.

(A) I'll start off by saying that a reason is a means towards some end. If the universe and everything within it arose by unembodied processes, nothing that we observe in nature can occur for any reason. This means that our organs, the water cycle, the sun, trees, and everything else imaginable has no reason at all for existing (as an actual state of affairs.)


I find this very hard to believe. It certainly appears that things in the universe actually exist as a means towards some end. For example the heart appears to serve a specific end: to circulate oxygenated blood throughout the body to sustain the organism. The water cycle appears to be the means by which water can be purified, recycled, and distributed throughout planet earth. Trees seem to act towards an end by regulating the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide content in the air. Sure, we can make descriptions of phenomena that we see occurring without God, but all we could say is that these things are the means for some action. In that case, we could just as credibly say that the reason the heart exists is to beat against the chest cavity, the water cycle is a process for making the ground wet, and the reason trees exist is to burrow their roots in the ground. All of these are descriptions of the things I listed (as a means for some action). Things in nature don't appear to be just means for action though. They appear to serve various reasons (means towards ends) as described.

There are outcomes in nature, that does not mean that the outcome is the result of intent.

Yes the hearts pumps blood, yes the ebola virus kills kiddies in africa, but this only establishes the OUTCOME and doesn't in anyway to conclude that therefore these outcomes are the product of intent.

Your going to need to do better than throw around a vague line about means to an end to establish intentionality.


So in order to convince me otherwise on this point you would have to either (1) show me that unembodied processes logically can and do act towards ends, (2) show me that unembodied processes strongly appear to act towards ends but in reality do not (by providing sufficient counter-examples), or (3) somehow convince me that things do not appear to act as a means toward an end. Remember, I'm making the claim that things in nature appear to *act as a means towards an end* as an actual state of affairs. The most plausible explanation, as I see it, is that they do.

Or I could just show you that you don't have a good reason to infer intentionality in the fist place.


(B) the incomprehensible odds of the life-permitting conditions of the universe occurring by chance. There are three ways that things occur: (1) by chance, (2) by physical necessity, or (3) by design.

(2) can be ruled out because the values and constants that govern our universe could be different. There's no reason to think that they are set necessarily. From what I understand most of the constants were set during the expansion of the Big Bang. Possibly I'm misunderstanding what it means by "physical necessity" so I'm open to this idea (although I'm aware that virtually nobody accepts that the universe exists by physical necessity).

(1) the odds of the life-permitting conditions in the universe being set by chance are so infinitesimally small it seems that it would never occur by chance. However, if it's *possible* that the values are what are they are by chance, design is not a necessary explanation. Is there more than one universe? Could we ever determine that this universe is tailored to the life-permitting values that we're observing a posteriori? (the sharpshooter fallacy from what I recall double R explaining). I accept that the universe could have the life-permitting values that it does by chance. The question becomes: is it more plausible that these values were set by chance or by design? A very very unlikely occurrence doesn't necessarily infer design. The odds of a man getting hit with a meteorite is in excess of billions to 1. If this event happens nobody would claim that design played a role. But are the life-permitting conditions of the universe just another odd amongst many in that 1 in 10^120th chance? I don't believe so because (1) the life-permitting conditions consist of independent alignments of multi-variat constants and "life-permitting" is a unique effect to the exclusion of all other possibilities. I know that most people probably hate the watchmaker analogy but I see it as being analogous to the life-permitting constants in the universe. A watch is composed of independent and complex parts that result in a specific effect (the accurate telling of time). The life-permitting constants of the universe are composed independent of one another in a complex framework and results in a specific effect (the life-permitting values). But what if the "specific effect" wasn't specific at all? What if it wasn't an intended consequence that life was able to arise with these perfect conditions? It's *possible* but I don't see it as *plausible*. The most plausible theory should be an inference to the best explanation. The best explanation is one that matches the data when pitted against other hypothesis'. You could change my mind on this by (1) by showing me evidence that more than one universe exists, (2) that the multi-variat and independent variables aligning to allow for this "specific" effect (life) are just as likely as any other non-specific odds (examples demonstrating multi-variat odds that produced a certain effect by chance would be good) or (3) that an intelligent designer is somehow not a feasible explanation for the life-permitting odds. (Or other).

Events that are astronomically improbably happen all the time.

Also any intelligent life form will find it's self in a universe or state that is compatible with it's existence cause if it did not it would not exist in the first place.

This creates an observer bias cause of necessary preconditions in order for observation to take place.


(C) the fluid interconnectivity of the universe as a whole.

Things in nature have reciprocal relationships despite acting independent of one another. When we consider the degree of the interdependence amongst relationships allowing sustainance of the whole, it's an elaborate ecosystem made of many independent parts. There is an "organizing factor" to being made up of many independent but interlocking parts. This lends credibility to the notion that the universe was intended to be actualized as a whole. This one is harder for me to explain and I'm running low on char space so I won't elaborate on this one for now.

Two words which I offer to help counter the proposition that this is all part of an intelligent designer who is just super awesome.......

Baby cancer.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Gentorev
Posts: 2,925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 4:54:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Have you ever seen a shooting star burn out in the evening sky?
Or watched a glowing ember, sparkle just before it dies?
Have you ever spoke to a little child with a terminal disease?
It's enough to make a grown man cry and drive him to his knees...........Gentorev.
Amoranemix
Posts: 521
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 5:24:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
First I give three general observations about how you arrive at your belief in God.

A) You conclude that God probably exists because there are mysteries that the scientific community cannot explain to your satisfaction and even because there are mysteries that you cannot explain personally. The latter is obviously no evidence for God. However, the former is only weak evidence for God. That is shown by the history of the advancement of scientific knowledge. A long time ago there were many more worldly mysteries than there are today. What has happened with those mysteries ? One of two things :
1) They are still mysteries today.
2) They have natural explanations today.
That is a strong indication that mysteries have either no explanation or a natural one. Therefore mysteries do not imply God.

B) Skyangel alluded to this. Even if we were to dismiss natural explanations, your evidence (the pieces you intend to present in different threads as well) don't imply the existence of a particular god. If one is open to the paranormal, then the potential for explanations is limited by our imagination only. For example, aliens could have created our universe. If you want to know where the aliens came from, then you are showing bias, because you probably are not so critical before accepting your god as an explanation.

C) You are showing evidential bias in (B). That is you accept an observation as evidence for what you already believe, but not as evidence for alternative hypotheses. See later.

Benshapiro
(A) I'll start off by saying that a reason is a means towards some end. If the universe and everything within it arose by unembodied processes, nothing that we observe in nature can occur for any reason. This means that our organs, the water cycle, the sun, trees, and everything else imaginable has no reason at all for existing (as an actual state of affairs.)
First, reason is too broad a word IMO. You seem to mean purpose, as that implies there is some end or goal that explains a phenomenon.
Second, with appearance you seem to mean 'that what one is naturally inclined to conclude without thoroughly analysing the evidence'. I am sure you are aware appearances can be deceiving.
Yet you seem to be ignoring that. You reason : elements of the ecosystem appear to have a purpose, therefore they have. That could be weak evidence of the form I described in A, but in fact, the mechanism of how the ecosystem became what it is today has been explained.
Two examples :
1) An organism has, according to the theory of evolution by natural selection, a heart that circulates blood not because someone designed it that way, but because the organism inherited the property of having a heart that circulates blood from its parents. It was able to inherit that property because it is useful for survival. It is called survival of the fittest. If the parents had hearts that pumped the blood outside the organism, they would not have lived long enough to become parents. That the heart beats against the chest cavity is just a side effect.
2) The matter of how the ecosystem works is more complicated. In Darwinian evolution, the smaller the element, the stronger the selective pressure. The smallest element is the gene, the largest is the ecosystem. Yet ecosystems with properties that promote their persistence are more likely to survive than those that don't. We can also see ecosystems adapt to the circumstances of global catastrophes. After a giant meteorite impact an ecosystem is better adapted to giant meteorite impacts than before.
An ecosystem drives the evolution of its organisms and the organisms form and transform the ecosystem as they evolve, in conjunction with external factors. However, ecosystems tend to rely on the adaptability of their species rather than be driven by natural selection themselves. If an ecosystem changes, then that usually doesn't serve any purpose. It just happens.
For example oxygen is a poison (because of its reactivity) and a waste product. So early organisms and later to greater extent plants excreted it. This was however not enough to destroy the ecosystem. Organisms became resistant, benefited from ozone and learned to exploit the element's reactivity. Since it proves so useful and has been present without interruption for 500 million years, most organisms have grown dependent upon it. So it is not that plants excrete oxygen to serve the ecosystem, but that the organisms have adapted to the presence of what was originally just a waste product.

I'll leave it at that for now.
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
TheUncannyN
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 9:28:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 6:45:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

(A) I'll start off by saying that a reason is a means towards some end. If the universe and everything within it arose by unembodied processes, nothing that we observe in nature can occur for any reason.

You start off with assertion. Why must there be a reason? Why do you think reality is contingent upon an encompassing purpose?

I find this very hard to believe. It certainly appears that things in the universe actually exist as a means towards some end. For example the heart appears to serve a specific end: to circulate oxygenated blood throughout the body to sustain the organism. The water cycle appears to be the means by which water can be purified, recycled, and distributed throughout planet earth. Trees seem to act towards an end by regulating the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide content in the air. Sure, we can make descriptions of phenomena that we see occurring without God, but all we could say is that these things are the means for some action. In that case, we could just as credibly say that the reason the heart exists is to beat against the chest cavity, the water cycle is a process for making the ground wet, and the reason trees exist is to burrow their roots in the ground. All of these are descriptions of the things I listed (as a means for some action). Things in nature don't appear to be just means for action though. They appear to serve various reasons (means towards ends) as described.

Saying things appear to have an in-built purpose is not the same as them actually having one. Take, for example, the human eye. Over 285 million people in the world suffer from vision impairment. That's a 4.07% failure rate of just one mechanism in the human machine with the percentage expected to rise. With significant other factors that point towards unreliable designs easily detectable by design failure analysis (not just on a human but universal scale), we are left with three conclusions to draw from this if we are assuming a designer of any sort:
1) He/she/it did not/has not taken into any consideration the reliability of his/her/it's design;
2) He/she/it is a bumbler and prone to engineering mistakes on a massive scale;
3) He/she/it either does not care enough to create an actual intelligently designed system or is incapable of doing so.

So in order to convince me otherwise on this point you would have to either (1) show me that unembodied processes logically can and do act towards ends, (2) show me that unembodied processes strongly appear to act towards ends but in reality do not (by providing sufficient counter-examples), or (3) somehow convince me that things do not appear to act as a means toward an end. Remember, I'm making the claim that things in nature appear to *act as a means towards an end* as an actual state of affairs. The most plausible explanation, as I see it, is that they do.

I would point you to Richard Dawkin's eulogy for Douglas Adams for an illustration on why this argument is flawed.

(1)&(2): http://evolution.berkeley.edu.... This details how evolution by natural selection--contrary to popular argument--does not produce complex systems by random chance alone.
(3): On this, the burden of proof is on you. We have no comparisons by which to state that anything in this universe is the way it is because it was designed with maximal efficiency in mind. At this point design is speculation.

(continued..)
TheUncannyN
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 10:03:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 6:45:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:


(B) the incomprehensible odds of the life-permitting conditions of the universe occurring by chance. There are three ways that things occur: (1) by chance, (2) by physical necessity, or (3) by design.

How do you know what the odds are? Unless you, yourself, are eternal, all-encompassing, with neither beginning nor end, I don't see how you can even claim to know what the chances are or even if these "life-permitting" conditions are either the norm or even the best they can be. You have no basis to even make this assumption. No line of comparison. The puddle fits you so it must be made with you in mind? Skeptics have long dismantled this argument, and now it's mostly relegated to the argumentations of Young Earth Creationists. Are you a Young Earth Creationist? If not and you have a modicum of intellectual honesty, then why are you using such a thoroughly defeated argument? You do not strike me as an out-and-out stupid person.

(2) can be ruled out because the values and constants that govern our universe could be different. There's no reason to think that they are set necessarily. From what I understand most of the constants were set during the expansion of the Big Bang. Possibly I'm misunderstanding what it means by "physical necessity" so I'm open to this idea (although I'm aware that virtually nobody accepts that the universe exists by physical necessity).

You are precisely right that (2) could be ruled out. But why, then, are you espousing a similar line of logic for your above statements? As far as I'm concerned "physical necessity" is creationist buzzspeak and equated to the laws of nature. You cannot easily separate the two. Does this not, by extension, also put a hefty dent in design?

(1) the odds of the life-permitting conditions in the universe being set by chance are so infinitesimally small it seems that it would never occur by chance.
How do you know they are infinitesimally small?
However, if it's *possible* that the values are what are they are by chance, design is not a necessary explanation. Is there more than one universe? Could we ever determine that this universe is tailored to the life-permitting values that we're observing a posteriori? (the sharpshooter fallacy from what I recall double R explaining).
Could we ever determine such a thing? Probably not.
I accept that the universe could have the life-permitting values that it does by chance. The question becomes: is it more plausible that these values were set by chance or by design?
That most certainly is not the question. The question is: should we then assume an extra step by assuming a hitherto undetectable designer? The answer is: "no until such reason is given to." Any designer should reach into our realm of experience and pull its arm back out "dripping with physics" (to quote Aronra). We should expect to detect such a disturbance. Unless you're willing to dive down the Matrix rabbit hole and into absurdity in where any serious discussion is impossible to be had.
A very very unlikely occurrence doesn't necessarily infer design.
Correct. But we don't know what "unlikely" even is in this case.
The odds of a man getting hit with a meteorite is in excess of billions to 1. If this event happens nobody would claim that design played a role. But are the life-permitting conditions of the universe just another odd amongst many in that 1 in 10^120th chance? I don't believe so because (1) the life-permitting conditions consist of independent alignments of multi-variat constants and "life-permitting" is a unique effect to the exclusion of all other possibilities.
No. They are only unique to the life we currently observe in this universe (which isn't even a gnat's as* portion of what could be out there). Once again, you have no basis of comparison to make this type of assumption.
I know that most people probably hate the watchmaker analogy but I see it as being analogous to the life-permitting constants in the universe. A watch is composed of independent and complex parts that result in a specific effect (the accurate telling of time). The life-permitting constants of the universe are composed independent of one another in a complex framework and results in a specific effect (the life-permitting values). But what if the "specific effect" wasn't specific at all? What if it wasn't an intended consequence that life was able to arise with these perfect conditions? It's *possible* but I don't see it as *plausible*. The most plausible theory should be an inference to the best explanation.
But positing a designer is not the best explanation, as I've proved above.
The best explanation is one that matches the data when pitted against other hypothesis'. You could change my mind on this by (1) by showing me evidence that more than one universe exists,
Why should we have to? We are willing to say that we don't know. We admit ignorance when it comes to this. We aren't the ones pleading special cases in our favor based on our existence alone. Sorry, but we don't owe you anything.
(2) that the multi-variat and independent variables aligning to allow for this "specific" effect (life) are just as likely as any other non-specific odds (examples demonstrating multi-variat odds that produced a certain effect by chance would be good)
See above.
or (3) that an intelligent designer is somehow not a feasible explanation for the life-permitting odds. (Or other).
Because it raises more questions than answers. It, by its nature, has no explanatory power. And even if it did, the fact there is/was a designer tells us nothing of commonality or frequency.

(C) the fluid interconnectivity of the universe as a whole.

Things in nature have reciprocal relationships despite acting independent of one another. When we consider the degree of the interdependence amongst relationships allowing sustainance of the whole,
A number of black holes and near-earth asteroids would disagree with you.
it's an elaborate ecosystem made of many independent parts. There is an "organizing factor" to being made up of many independent but interlocking parts. This lends credibility to the notion that the universe was intended to be actualized as a whole. This one is harder for me to explain and I'm running low on char space so I won't elaborate on this one for now.
This comes across as nothing but a bunch of hippy-dippy rhetoric. No reason to address it until it makes sense.
Preceptor
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 10:17:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Do not forget the "CELL" which has its own scientific theory. Cells exist yet they cannot come about unless by another cell and any other explanation is special pleading as the theory states as such. Therefore a cell can only exist in this universe unless a cell or cells placed them inside this universe. A cell is the most basic form of life therefore a life exist outside this universe whom placed cells inside this universe. This does not mean "GOD" but suggest a life which existed before this universe and planted life in this universe.
TheUncannyN
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 10:38:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 10:17:40 AM, Preceptor wrote:
Do not forget the "CELL" which has its own scientific theory. Cells exist yet they cannot come about unless by another cell and any other explanation is special pleading as the theory states as such. Therefore a cell can only exist in this universe unless a cell or cells placed them inside this universe. A cell is the most basic form of life therefore a life exist outside this universe whom placed cells inside this universe. This does not mean "GOD" but suggest a life which existed before this universe and planted life in this universe.

Being ignorant of both chemistry and biology doesn't give you grounds to try to make exemptions for your god when it comes to special pleading.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 10:48:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 10:17:40 AM, Preceptor wrote:
Do not forget the "CELL" which has its own scientific theory.

You start out with cell theory yet wind up talking about abiogenesis.

Cells exist yet they cannot come about unless by another cell and any other explanation is special pleading as the theory states as such.

No, the theory is not about the origin of a cell or cells in general.

Energy flow occurs within cells.
Heredity information (DNA) is passed on from cell to cell.
All cells have the same basic chemical composition.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Therefore a cell can only exist in this universe unless a cell or cells placed them inside this universe.
A cell is the most basic form of life therefore a life exist outside this universe whom placed cells inside this universe.[1] This does not mean "GOD" but suggest a life which existed before this universe and planted life in this universe.

Which implies that your god consists of cells? It should be obvious that this is incompatible with your faith, since cells are matter and matter cannot create other matter out of nothing.

Moreover
Cells exist yet they cannot come about unless by another cell
This is applicable to your god to since
any other explanation is special pleading

From which follows that you still wind up with an infinite regress.

[1] This is a complete non sequitur.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 10:58:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Your assumptions:"(1) the appearance of design in nature. Nature appears to be designed because (A) things in nature appear to act as means towards ends, (B) the odds of life-permitting constants in the universe being set by chance are so great that it's unfeasable to have occurred by chance, and (C) the fluid interconnectivity of the universe as a complex whole."

My responses:"The is no apparent design in nature. The variety of life forms proves the inconsistency and therefore implausibility of an intelligent designer .
(A) the end is materialistic determination. We eat we breathe and we die. There is no higher purpose or means to an end as much as we try to define one.
(B) the rare earth theory proves life is unique in the pale blue planet and could only have occurred by chance or we would see an abundance of life in the billions of earth like planets.
(C) the physical laws that govern our universe are not without exceptions and unpredictable as weather forecasting has proven."
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 11:37:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Atheism basically claims that all gods are mythical and no gods exist in REALITY.

Whether a character named God exists in REALITY or not depends on how you personally define and perceive the word GOD.

Take a look at your own words and as an exercise in logic just replace the word God with the word Mother Nature.
Your argument applies to Mother Nature in exactly the same way as it applies to your God. Does that mean Mother Nature more than likely exists?

I see evidence for an intelligent creator of the universe. I give this label "God". If "Mother Nature" is defined as an intelligent creator of the universe, then yes, my arguments would apply equally because they'd be one in the same. If mother nature is not meant to be an intelligent creator of the universe then it would not apply the same way.

Your argument could apply to all mythical gods with imaginary supernatural powers. Therefore how is the argument exclusive in any way to some exclusive supernatural "Father God" who is supposedly the creator of the universe when Mother Nature could just as easily be that creator?

I haven't shown any arguments other than ones for intelligent design. So while God *could* have additional characteristics, this isn't what the arguments show. It depends on how you define "mother nature" in order to compare it with God as an explanation.

In reality LIFE is not created by some supernatural entity but by LIFE itself.
LIFE itself IS the creator of LIFE.
It really makes no difference how people PERSONIFY LIFE or what name they give to it. LIFE by any other name still does exactly the same as it always has done for all eternity through its MANY CYCLES.
LIFE is a REALITY which can be observed at work daily.
Call it God or Mother Nature or Zeus if you like. Your arguments apply to LIFE itself in reality and do not prove that any invisible characters exist at all.
Trying to prove God most likely exists is no different to trying to prove Mother Nature most likely exists.
You CANNOT prove the character exists when the character is nothing but a PERSONIFICATION of a PROCESS, a PRINCIPLE, an ENERGY.

The character remains fictional in spite of the character REPRESENTING something in reality.

I don't see God as a personification but apparently you do.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 11:49:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 6:45:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

(1) the appearance of design in nature. Nature appears to be designed because

(A) things in nature appear to act as means towards ends,

In order to determine that things are likely acting as a means towards an end, you must first determine that the end was beneficial to the actor. For example, if you are a homicide detective and conclusively proved that a man was killed by his son, you can establish a reasonable case of intent by discovering that the son was named as the beneficiary of a $1,000,000 life insurance policy which was about to expire.

There is no apparent benefit to anyone or anything from the universe existing in it's current state nor from Earth containing life except for life itself, which is the entire problem with this argument. We (life) are the result of this process, and yet we are the only apparent thing that benefits from it. This argument is a classic case of the puddle who becomes conscience, looks around, and determines that the ground fits him perfectly and thus was designed just for him.

As far as the specifics of how our ecosystem came about, if you are really putting stock in this argument I suggest you study it. You mentioned how trees for example appear to regulate the oxygen for everything else, yet trees (or plant-life in general) came before everything else. Life that took advantage of this came afterward and adapted to it. It is not difficult to imagine how something adapting to something else could be construed to look like it happened the other way around. Nothing remarkable about that.

(B) the odds of life-permitting constants in the universe being set by chance are so great that it's unfeasable to have occurred by chance, and

Glad to see you acknowledge the sharpshooter fallacy, but independent alignments are not in any way a valid refutation of this. In fact independent alignments are often how we go about determining the odds of something in the first place. If I roll a pair of dice, the odds of getting a 7 are 0.167%. The fact that it relies on two independent dice both acting together in no way impacts this.

(C) the fluid interconnectivity of the universe as a whole.

Again, the interconnectivity of the universe is no benefit to anyone or anything except us (the very result of the process). Until you can establish that someone or something apart from the result of the process is actually benefiting from this you cannot reasonably establish a case of intent for it.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 11:49:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 11:37:28 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

I see evidence for an intelligent creator of the universe. I give this label "God".

Of course you do, but you need to put down the Bible and pick up other books that explain how the universe works as opposed to what bronze age goat herders believed how the universe worked.

I haven't shown any arguments other than ones for intelligent design.

An argument from Scriptures isn't the only argument, it's just one that has been shown to be invalid when compared with what we actually do understand about the universe.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 12:08:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are outcomes in nature, that does not mean that the outcome is the result of intent.

Yes the hearts pumps blood, yes the ebola virus kills kiddies in africa, but this only establishes the OUTCOME and doesn't in anyway to conclude that therefore these outcomes are the product of intent.

Your going to need to do better than throw around a vague line about means to an end to establish intentionality.

Acting as a means towards an end establishes intent. The heart circulates oxygenated blood throughout the body. Circulating oxygenated blood throughout the body is an end. The question is, does the heart actually exist for that reason or is it just a means for some action?

If the heart actually exists for that reason (means towards an end), then it's a logical contradiction to posit that the heart is emergent from an unembodied process. Unembodied processes can't produce anything that is for an end because ends require intent. Intent requires some form of consciousness.

If the heart doesn't actually exist as a means towards an end, then the heart is just a means for action. In that case, we can just as credibly say that the heart is for beating against the chest cavity as it is for circulating oxygenated blood throughout the body.

Given these two options I see the heart actually acting as a means towards end is the most plausible explanation.


So in order to convince me otherwise on this point you would have to either (1) show me that unembodied processes logically can and do act towards ends, (2) show me that unembodied processes strongly appear to act towards ends but in reality do not (by providing sufficient counter-examples), or (3) somehow convince me that things do not appear to act as a means toward an end. Remember, I'm making the claim that things in nature appear to *act as a means towards an end* as an actual state of affairs. The most plausible explanation, as I see it, is that they do.

Or I could just show you that you don't have a good reason to infer intentionality in the fist place.

You can do this by showing me (1) - (3)


(B) the incomprehensible odds of the life-permitting conditions of the universe occurring by chance. There are three ways that things occur: (1) by chance, (2) by physical necessity, or (3) by design.

(2) can be ruled out because the values and constants that govern our universe could be different. There's no reason to think that they are set necessarily. From what I understand most of the constants were set during the expansion of the Big Bang. Possibly I'm misunderstanding what it means by "physical necessity" so I'm open to this idea (although I'm aware that virtually nobody accepts that the universe exists by physical necessity).

(1) the odds of the life-permitting conditions in the universe being set by chance are so infinitesimally small it seems that it would never occur by chance. However, if it's *possible* that the values are what are they are by chance, design is not a necessary explanation. Is there more than one universe? Could we ever determine that this universe is tailored to the life-permitting values that we're observing a posteriori? (the sharpshooter fallacy from what I recall double R explaining). I accept that the universe could have the life-permitting values that it does by chance. The question becomes: is it more plausible that these values were set by chance or by design? A very very unlikely occurrence doesn't necessarily infer design. The odds of a man getting hit with a meteorite is in excess of billions to 1. If this event happens nobody would claim that design played a role. But are the life-permitting conditions of the universe just another odd amongst many in that 1 in 10^120th chance? I don't believe so because (1) the life-permitting conditions consist of independent alignments of multi-variat constants and "life-permitting" is a unique effect to the exclusion of all other possibilities. I know that most people probably hate the watchmaker analogy but I see it as being analogous to the life-permitting constants in the universe. A watch is composed of independent and complex parts that result in a specific effect (the accurate telling of time). The life-permitting constants of the universe are composed independent of one another in a complex framework and results in a specific effect (the life-permitting values). But what if the "specific effect" wasn't specific at all? What if it wasn't an intended consequence that life was able to arise with these perfect conditions? It's *possible* but I don't see it as *plausible*. The most plausible theory should be an inference to the best explanation. The best explanation is one that matches the data when pitted against other hypothesis'. You could change my mind on this by (1) by showing me evidence that more than one universe exists, (2) that the multi-variat and independent variables aligning to allow for this "specific" effect (life) are just as likely as any other non-specific odds (examples demonstrating multi-variat odds that produced a certain effect by chance would be good) or (3) that an intelligent designer is somehow not a feasible explanation for the life-permitting odds. (Or other).

Events that are astronomically improbably happen all the time.

I've argued why this doesn't seem to be another odd amongst many.

Also any intelligent life form will find it's self in a universe or state that is compatible with it's existence cause if it did not it would not exist in the first place.

That is true, but that wouldn't entail an explanation for the origin of their consciousness.

This creates an observer bias cause of necessary preconditions in order for observation to take place.

Surely we can seek an explanation though.


(C) the fluid interconnectivity of the universe as a whole.

Things in nature have reciprocal relationships despite acting independent of one another. When we consider the degree of the interdependence amongst relationships allowing sustainance of the whole, it's an elaborate ecosystem made of many independent parts. There is an "organizing factor" to being made up of many independent but interlocking parts. This lends credibility to the notion that the universe was intended to be actualized as a whole. This one is harder for me to explain and I'm running low on char space so I won't elaborate on this one for now.

Two words which I offer to help counter the proposition that this is all part of an intelligent designer who is

Looks like you got cut off.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 12:13:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 4:54:06 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Have you ever seen a shooting star burn out in the evening sky?
Or watched a glowing ember, sparkle just before it dies?
Have you ever spoke to a little child with a terminal disease?
It's enough to make a grown man cry and drive him to his knees...........Gentorev.

Is your point that if the universe is designed, it is flawed?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 12:42:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 5:24:47 AM, Amoranemix wrote:
First I give three general observations about how you arrive at your belief in God.

A) You conclude that God probably exists because there are mysteries that the scientific community cannot explain to your satisfaction and even because there are mysteries that you cannot explain personally. The latter is obviously no evidence for God. However, the former is only weak evidence for God. That is shown by the history of the advancement of scientific knowledge. A long time ago there were many more worldly mysteries than there are today. What has happened with those mysteries ? One of two things :
1) They are still mysteries today.
2) They have natural explanations today.
That is a strong indication that mysteries have either no explanation or a natural one. Therefore mysteries do not imply God.

I don't recall making any god of the gaps arguments. I've argued 3 points: Nature appears to be designed because (A) things in nature appear to act as means towards ends, (B) the odds of life-permitting constants in the universe being set by chance are so great that it's unfeasable to have occurred by chance, and (C) because of the fluid interconnectivity of the universe as a complex whole.

Throughout history many people have erroneously attributed inexplicable phenomena to God. Does this lessen the likelihood of God existing? If God is defined as the intelligent designer of the universe, then no, I don't think so. Having false claims about something doesn't lessen the likelihood of its existence. Julius Caesar could be said to have slew a cyclops, fought the gods, and conquered Antarctica. None of those claims should lessen the likelihood of Julius Caesar's existence as an emperor of Rome. If God is defined as the mystic force that explains the unexplained, then yes, that certainly nulls the existence of God. The plausibility of an argument should be based on an inference to the best explanation. As I see it, my arguments infer an intelligent designer unless it can be shown otherwise.

B) Skyangel alluded to this. Even if we were to dismiss natural explanations, your evidence (the pieces you intend to present in different threads as well) don't imply the existence of a particular god. If one is open to the paranormal, then the potential for explanations is limited by our imagination only. For example, aliens could have created our universe. If you want to know where the aliens came from, then you are showing bias, because you probably are not so critical before accepting your god as an explanation.

If an alien is an intelligent creator of the universe, then absolutely, it make no difference. If this alien is the intelligent creator of the universe, then alien and God are interchangeable terms.

C) You are showing evidential bias in (B). That is you accept an observation as evidence for what you already believe, but not as evidence for alternative hypotheses. See later.

I'm open to seeing at as evidence for an alternative hypothesis, what do you have in mind?

Benshapiro
(A) I'll start off by saying that a reason is a means towards some end. If the universe and everything within it arose by unembodied processes, nothing that we observe in nature can occur for any reason. This means that our organs, the water cycle, the sun, trees, and everything else imaginable has no reason at all for existing (as an actual state of affairs.)
First, reason is too broad a word IMO. You seem to mean purpose, as that implies there is some end or goal that explains a phenomenon.

I'm fine with using a different term as long it has the *meaning* of a means towards an end. That's what I'm getting at.

Second, with appearance you seem to mean 'that what one is naturally inclined to conclude without thoroughly analysing the evidence'. I am sure you are aware appearances can be deceiving.

Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't.

Yet you seem to be ignoring that. You reason : elements of the ecosystem appear to have a purpose, therefore they have. That could be weak evidence of the form I described in A, but in fact, the mechanism of how the ecosystem became what it is today has been explained.
Two examples :
1) An organism has, according to the theory of evolution by natural selection, a heart that circulates blood not because someone designed it that way, but because the organism inherited the property of having a heart that circulates blood from its parents. It was able to inherit that property because it is useful for survival. It is called survival of the fittest. If the parents had hearts that pumped the blood outside the organism, they would not have lived long enough to become parents. That the heart beats against the chest cavity is just a side effect.

Evolution and natural selection can't occur in order to help the organism survive because both are just unembodied processes devoid of goals, objectives, or intent. Evolution and natural selection can only result in more species rather than less. If the heart beating against the chest cavity is a side effect, are you arguing that the heart actually has an end (to circulate oxygenated blood throughout the body)?

2) The matter of how the ecosystem works is more complicated. In Darwinian evolution, the smaller the element, the stronger the selective pressure. The smallest element is the gene, the largest is the ecosystem. Yet ecosystems with properties that promote their persistence are more likely to survive than those that don't. We can also see ecosystems adapt to the circumstances of global catastrophes. After a giant meteorite impact an ecosystem is better adapted to giant meteorite impacts than before.
An ecosystem drives the evolution of its organisms and the organisms form and transform the ecosystem as they evolve, in conjunction with external factors. However, ecosystems tend to rely on the adaptability of their species rather than be driven by natural selection themselves. If an ecosystem changes, then that usually doesn't serve any purpose. It just happens.
For example oxygen is a poison (because of its reactivity) and a waste product. So early organisms and later to greater extent plants excreted it. This was however not enough to destroy the ecosystem. Organisms became resistant, benefited from ozone and learned to exploit the element's reactivity. Since it proves so useful and has been present without interruption for 500 million years, most organisms have grown dependent upon it. So it is not that plants excrete oxygen to serve the ecosystem, but that the organisms have adapted to the presence of what was originally just a waste product.

I'll leave it at that for now.

I think adaptability is a good point on the face of it. Since things in nature have a tendency to adapt to their environment it would make it appear as though things serve various ends. But they adapt because __________? If the answer is to "sustain the survival of the organism" or any variant thereof, this is another objective, goal, end, or purpose for an unembodied process.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 1:12:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 9:28:56 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
At 4/18/2015 6:45:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

(A) I'll start off by saying that a reason is a means towards some end. If the universe and everything within it arose by unembodied processes, nothing that we observe in nature can occur for any reason.

You start off with assertion. Why must there be a reason? Why do you think reality is contingent upon an encompassing purpose?

I'm going to emphasize terms for clarity. I didn't say that there MUST be a reason. I made an IF ___ THEN ___ statement that IF the universe arose by unembodied processes THEN nothing that we observe can occur for any reason. I also don't think that reality is *contingent upon* an encompassing purpose. I explain later on that things appear to act as a means towards an end before reaching the conclusion that things in nature most plausibly exist for a reason.

I find this very hard to believe. It certainly appears that things in the universe actually exist as a means towards some end. For example the heart appears to serve a specific end: to circulate oxygenated blood throughout the body to sustain the organism. The water cycle appears to be the means by which water can be purified, recycled, and distributed throughout planet earth. Trees seem to act towards an end by regulating the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide content in the air. Sure, we can make descriptions of phenomena that we see occurring without God, but all we could say is that these things are the means for some action. In that case, we could just as credibly say that the reason the heart exists is to beat against the chest cavity, the water cycle is a process for making the ground wet, and the reason trees exist is to burrow their roots in the ground. All of these are descriptions of the things I listed (as a means for some action). Things in nature don't appear to be just means for action though. They appear to serve various reasons (means towards ends) as described.

Saying things appear to have an in-built purpose is not the same as them actually having one. Take, for example, the human eye. Over 285 million people in the world suffer from vision impairment. That's a 4.07% failure rate of just one mechanism in the human machine with the percentage expected to rise. With significant other factors that point towards unreliable designs easily detectable by design failure analysis (not just on a human but universal scale), we are left with three conclusions to draw from this if we are assuming a designer of any sort:
1) He/she/it did not/has not taken into any consideration the reliability of his/her/it's design;
2) He/she/it is a bumbler and prone to engineering mistakes on a massive scale;
3) He/she/it either does not care enough to create an actual intelligently designed system or is incapable of doing so.

Yeah but vision impairment of the eye can be based on many factors (disease, malnourishment, mistreatment, unsafe working conditions). If a design blueprint gets manufactured incorrectly I don't see how this a design flaw. My point was mostly in relation to things in nature acting as means towards ends, which has a slightly different focus than how well-designed systems appear to be.


So in order to convince me otherwise on this point you would have to either (1) show me that unembodied processes logically can and do act towards ends, (2) show me that unembodied processes strongly appear to act towards ends but in reality do not (by providing sufficient counter-examples), or (3) somehow convince me that things do not appear to act as a means toward an end. Remember, I'm making the claim that things in nature appear to *act as a means towards an end* as an actual state of affairs. The most plausible explanation, as I see it, is that they do.

I would point you to Richard Dawkin's eulogy for Douglas Adams for an illustration on why this argument is flawed.

(1)&(2): http://evolution.berkeley.edu.... This details how evolution by natural selection--contrary to popular argument--does not produce complex systems by random chance alone.
(3): On this, the burden of proof is on you. We have no comparisons by which to state that anything in this universe is the way it is because it was designed with maximal efficiency in mind. At this point design is speculation.

I agree that natural selection can produce the appearance of design and this doesn't require or even make God a plausible explanation. The question is, design for what? A water bottle is specifically designed for the storage of liquid. Is natural selection specifically for making (seemingly) designed systems that ensure the ongoing survival of the organism? I don't see how that's possible if we're agreeing that evolution and natural selection are unembodied processes.

(continued..)
TheUncannyN
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 1:37:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 1:12:33 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/19/2015 9:28:56 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
At 4/18/2015 6:45:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

I'm going to emphasize terms for clarity. I didn't say that there MUST be a reason. I made an IF ___ THEN ___ statement that IF the universe arose by unembodied processes THEN nothing that we observe can occur for any reason. I also don't think that reality is *contingent upon* an encompassing purpose. I explain later on that things appear to act as a means towards an end before reaching the conclusion that things in nature most plausibly exist for a reason.
Fair enough, but I'm still failing to see where you're connecting the appearance of purpose with the plausibility of it.

Yeah but vision impairment of the eye can be based on many factors (disease, malnourishment, mistreatment, unsafe working conditions). If a design blueprint gets manufactured incorrectly I don't see how this a design flaw. My point was mostly in relation to things in nature acting as means towards ends, which has a slightly different focus than how well-designed systems appear to be.
Wait. Where are you drawing the line between the designer designing and the manufacturing process? That seems like a gish gallop to me. In either case, design is still not made anymore plausible because you're still just working off appearances and biases. Variable exists, yes, but the fact remains that the potential for the failure is there, unaccounted for by any intelligent outside operator. If you want to draw the line at these random variables, then we'll get no where because it will become increasingly difficult to distinguish between faulty mechanisms and simple mishaps. At that point, you're pettifogging.

I agree that natural selection can produce the appearance of design and this doesn't require or even make God a plausible explanation. The question is, design for what? A water bottle is specifically designed for the storage of liquid. Is natural selection specifically for making (seemingly) designed systems that ensure the ongoing survival of the organism? I don't see how that's possible if we're agreeing that evolution and natural selection are unembodied processes.
A design for what? Survival. The processes themselves are unembodied, but they are displayed, if you will, through creatures with interests towards self-preservation, though this, too, can be (and has been) proven to fail. Lemmings--though they do not intentionally perform suicidal behaviors--will often fail to recognize their physical limitations and end up dying simply by following migratory instincts. The number of failed species outnumber the current species that are alive today, and the potential arrangement of all DNA on this planet is outnumbered even more by those that could but don't exist. It is a blind process expressed in nature. The illusion of design can still remain just that.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 2:09:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 10:03:59 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
At 4/18/2015 6:45:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:


(B) the incomprehensible odds of the life-permitting conditions of the universe occurring by chance. There are three ways that things occur: (1) by chance, (2) by physical necessity, or (3) by design.

How do you know what the odds are? Unless you, yourself, are eternal, all-encompassing, with neither beginning nor end, I don't see how you can even claim to know what the chances are or even if these "life-permitting" conditions are either the norm or even the best they can be. You have no basis to even make this assumption. No line of comparison. The puddle fits you so it must be made with you in mind? Skeptics have long dismantled this argument, and now it's mostly relegated to the argumentations of Young Earth Creationists. Are you a Young Earth Creationist? If not and you have a modicum of intellectual honesty, then why are you using such a thoroughly defeated argument? You do not strike me as an out-and-out stupid person.

I don't see why we can't determine the window of life-permitting possibility by tweaking the various cosmological constants and calculating the maximum allowable variance based on the conditions that life would need in order to survive. These calculations have been done by various astrophysicists and theoretical physicists. As far I know, those in the scientific community would agree that life is fine-tuned but disagree as to the explanation why. Maybe life could've adapted under different conditions that as far as we know would be impossible. We just have no plausible basis for believing that to be the case. No, I'm not a YEC.

(2) can be ruled out because the values and constants that govern our universe could be different. There's no reason to think that they are set necessarily. From what I understand most of the constants were set during the expansion of the Big Bang. Possibly I'm misunderstanding what it means by "physical necessity" so I'm open to this idea (although I'm aware that virtually nobody accepts that the universe exists by physical necessity).

You are precisely right that (2) could be ruled out. But why, then, are you espousing a similar line of logic for your above statements? As far as I'm concerned "physical necessity" is creationist buzzspeak and equated to the laws of nature. You cannot easily separate the two. Does this not, by extension, also put a hefty dent in design?

What about that would put a heavy dent in design?

(1) the odds of the life-permitting conditions in the universe being set by chance are so infinitesimally small it seems that it would never occur by chance.
How do you know they are infinitesimally small?
However, if it's *possible* that the values are what are they are by chance, design is not a necessary explanation. Is there more than one universe? Could we ever determine that this universe is tailored to the life-permitting values that we're observing a posteriori? (the sharpshooter fallacy from what I recall double R explaining).
Could we ever determine such a thing? Probably not.

We can make an inference to the best explanation, but we can't know with certainty what that explanation is.

I accept that the universe could have the life-permitting values that it does by chance. The question becomes: is it more plausible that these values were set by chance or by design?
That most certainly is not the question. The question is: should we then assume an extra step by assuming a hitherto undetectable designer? The answer is: "no until such reason is given to." Any designer should reach into our realm of experience and pull its arm back out "dripping with physics" (to quote Aronra). We should expect to detect such a disturbance. Unless you're willing to dive down the Matrix rabbit hole and into absurdity in where any serious discussion is impossible to be had.

It depends on what best explains the data. If chance isn't a feasible explanation then positing an intelligent cause isn't an additional step, it's the most plausible. If we can determine that it's feasible to have occurred by chance then yes, intelligent design is no longer the most plausible explanation.

A very very unlikely occurrence doesn't necessarily infer design.
Correct. But we don't know what "unlikely" even is in this case.

In terms of odds, no. In terms of a window of life-permitting possibility, yes.

No. They are only unique to the life we currently observe in this universe (which isn't even a gnat's as* portion of what could be out there). Once again, you have no basis of comparison to make this type of assumption.

But what reason do we have to posit that there's more than one universe? In order to determine that life-permitting possibilities in this universe aren't unique we'd need reason to believe that there is plausibly different universes with different constants with different forms of life.

I know that most people probably hate the watchmaker analogy but I see it as being analogous to the life-permitting constants in the universe. A watch is composed of independent and complex parts that result in a specific effect (the accurate telling of time). The life-permitting constants of the universe are composed independent of one another in a complex framework and results in a specific effect (the life-permitting values). But what if the "specific effect" wasn't specific at all? What if it wasn't an intended consequence that life was able to arise with these perfect conditions? It's *possible* but I don't see it as *plausible*. The most plausible theory should be an inference to the best explanation.
But positing a designer is not the best explanation, as I've proved above.

Where we fundamentally disagree is that we can calculate life-permitting possibilities of this universe.

Why should we have to? We are willing to say that we don't know. We admit ignorance when it comes to this. We aren't the ones pleading special cases in our favor based on our existence alone. Sorry, but we don't owe you anything.

If we don't have any reason to posit more than one universe, we have no reason to believe that life-permitting possibilities could be different.

(2) that the multi-variat and independent variables aligning to allow for this "specific" effect (life) are just as likely as any other non-specific odds (examples demonstrating multi-variat odds that produced a certain effect by chance would be good)
See above.
or (3) that an intelligent designer is somehow not a feasible explanation for the life-permitting odds. (Or other).
Because it raises more questions than answers. It, by its nature, has no explanatory power. And even if it did, the fact there is/was a designer tells us nothing of commonality or frequency.

If the universe is fine-tuned for life, it should be very likely to have occurred by intelligent cause and very unlikely to have occurred by chance.

(C) the fluid interconnectivity of the universe as a whole.

Things in nature have reciprocal relationships despite acting independent of one another. When we consider the degree of the interdependence amongst relationships allowing sustainance of the whole,
A number of black holes and near-earth asteroids would disagree with you.
it's an elaborate ecosystem made of many independent parts. There is an "organizing factor" to being made up of many independent but interlocking parts. This lends credibility to the notion that the universe was intended to be actualized as a whole. This one is harder for me to explain and I'm running low on char space so I won't elaborate on this one for now.
This comes across as nothing but a bunch of hippy-dippy rhetoric. No reason to address it until it makes sense.

I'll have to expand on this later.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 2:24:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 10:58:05 AM, Harikrish wrote:
Your assumptions:"(1) the appearance of design in nature. Nature appears to be designed because (A) things in nature appear to act as means towards ends, (B) the odds of life-permitting constants in the universe being set by chance are so great that it's unfeasable to have occurred by chance, and (C) the fluid interconnectivity of the universe as a complex whole."

My responses:"The is no apparent design in nature. The variety of life forms proves the inconsistency and therefore implausibility of an intelligent designer .

Why would the diversity of life make something "inconsistent"? If the diversity of life is intentional there's no inconsistency about it.

(A) the end is materialistic determination. We eat we breathe and we die. There is no higher purpose or means to an end as much as we try to define one.

What do you mean by "materialistic determination"? Ends require goals or objectives. In order to have a goal or an objective you must harbor intentionality. Intentionality is only possible with some form of consciousness.

(B) the rare earth theory proves life is unique in the pale blue planet and could only have occurred by chance or we would see an abundance of life in the billions of earth like planets.

I'm not sure how that supports that life arose by chance.

(C) the physical laws that govern our universe are not without exceptions and unpredictable as weather forecasting has proven."

The cosmological constant doesn't change. What you're referring to just an effect of physics.
Preceptor
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 2:26:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 10:38:49 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
At 4/19/2015 10:17:40 AM, Preceptor wrote:
Do not forget the "CELL" which has its own scientific theory. Cells exist yet they cannot come about unless by another cell and any other explanation is special pleading as the theory states as such. Therefore a cell can only exist in this universe unless a cell or cells placed them inside this universe. A cell is the most basic form of life therefore a life exist outside this universe whom placed cells inside this universe. This does not mean "GOD" but suggest a life which existed before this universe and planted life in this universe.

Being ignorant of both chemistry and biology doesn't give you grounds to try to make exemptions for your god when it comes to special pleading.

I am not ignorant of either chemistry or biology. Neither am I making exceptions when I stated "This does not mean "GOD" so your just confused. Try reading the cell theory before making statements you have no clue about.
Preceptor
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 2:32:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 10:48:36 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 4/19/2015 10:17:40 AM, Preceptor wrote:
Do not forget the "CELL" which has its own scientific theory.

You start out with cell theory yet wind up talking about abiogenesis.

No. I remained on the cell theory.

Cells exist yet they cannot come about unless by another cell and any other explanation is special pleading as the theory states as such.

No, the theory is not about the origin of a cell or cells in general.

You then have no idea what the theory states. It states that cells only come about by another cell. No one even addressed origins of the cell.

Energy flow occurs within cells.
Heredity information (DNA) is passed on from cell to cell.
All cells have the same basic chemical composition.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Try a reliable source.

The modern tenets of the Cell Theory include:
1. all known living things are made up of cells.
2. the cell is structural & functional unit of all living things.
3. all cells come from pre-existing cells by division.
(Spontaneous Generation does not occur).
4. cells contains hereditary information which is passed from
cell to cell during cell division.
5. All cells are basically the same in chemical composition.
6. all energy flow (metabolism & biochemistry) of life occurs
within cells.
http://www.bio.miami.edu...

Therefore a cell can only exist in this universe unless a cell or cells placed them inside this universe.
A cell is the most basic form of life therefore a life exist outside this universe whom placed cells inside this universe.[1] This does not mean "GOD" but suggest a life which existed before this universe and planted life in this universe.

Which implies that your god consists of cells? It should be obvious that this is incompatible with your faith, since cells are matter and matter cannot create other matter out of nothing.

This is not incompatible with my religion.

Moreover
Cells exist yet they cannot come about unless by another cell
This is applicable to your god to since
any other explanation is special pleading

From which follows that you still wind up with an infinite regress.

[1] This is a complete non sequitur.

No. The answer is life (the cell) has always existed in some form or another.
TheUncannyN
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 2:37:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 2:09:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/19/2015 10:03:59 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
At 4/18/2015 6:45:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

I don't see why we can't determine the window of life-permitting possibility by tweaking the various cosmological constants and calculating the maximum allowable variance based on the conditions that life would need in order to survive. These calculations have been done by various astrophysicists and theoretical physicists. As far I know, those in the scientific community would agree that life is fine-tuned but disagree as to the explanation why. Maybe life could've adapted under different conditions that as far as we know would be impossible. We just have no plausible basis for believing that to be the case. No, I'm not a YEC.
No they do not. Most of them would say that any "tweaking" could result in life still assuming form, though not in any form we would recognize as having emerged in this universe. "Why" in relation to fine-tuning is not in contention. To assume our physics to be perfect for life is a ridiculous notion. I would also turn it to you to ask why what I've said in this and the aforementioned paragraph is any less plausible than design.

What about that would put a heavy dent in design?
I'm not explaining that. Look up anything rebutting William Lane Craig.

We can make an inference to the best explanation, but we can't know with certainty what that explanation is.
But that does not mean we get to appeal to areas of speculation and dubious assertions.

It depends on what best explains the data. If chance isn't a feasible explanation then positing an intelligent cause isn't an additional step, it's the most plausible. If we can determine that it's feasible to have occurred by chance then yes, intelligent design is no longer the most plausible explanation.
You still have to account for the "chance". Simply saying "chance" doesn't give you an escape hatch. What do you even mean "chance"? Are you inferring odds? Or are you referencing the fact that a universe exists and we happen to be in it? How much do you know about the Law of Large Numbers?

In terms of odds, no. In terms of a window of life-permitting possibility, yes.
Once again, you have no basis to make this assertion.

But what reason do we have to posit that there's more than one universe? In order to determine that life-permitting possibilities in this universe aren't unique we'd need reason to believe that there is plausibly different universes with different constants with different forms of life.
I said nothing about other universes. First prove that these "life-permitting" possibilities are optimal, then we'll move on to the fact that we can comfortably speculate on other universes (multiverse or no) because we experience one. We have not experienced a being creating one.

I know that most people probably hate the watchmaker analogy but I see it as being analogous to the life-permitting constants in the universe. A watch is composed of independent and complex parts that result in a specific effect (the accurate telling of time). The life-permitting constants of the universe are composed independent of one another in a complex framework and results in a specific effect (the life-permitting values). But what if the "specific effect" wasn't specific at all? What if it wasn't an intended consequence that life was able to arise with these perfect conditions? It's *possible* but I don't see it as *plausible*. The most plausible theory should be an inference to the best explanation.
But positing a designer is not the best explanation, as I've proved above.

Where we fundamentally disagree is that we can calculate life-permitting possibilities of this universe.

"Life-permitting possibilities" again.
I see no reason to continue this right now. You're just repeating yourself and forcing me to do the same and I hate repeating myself. This is fruitless until you posit a rational argument as to why your designer is more plausible than the universe while accounting for the counter-arguments already put forth against this position countless times before. It's obvious you haven't researched it that thoroughly.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 3:22:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 6:45:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Right now I believe it's more plausibly true than false that God exists.
Ben, the argument you presented is one for an intentional creator, and that's not the same as an argument for a supreme moral authority, which is what's normally meant by God.

The first claim -- of intentional, intelligent cosmogeny -- is actually a metaphysical claim capable of making some physical prediction, and is resolvable -- at least in part -- by physical evidence over time.

The second claim -- of supreme moral authority -- is not a physical, or even a metaphysical claim. It's a political claim: of the right of submission. This claim is made by ordinary people deciding what is and is not theological doctrine, and what it does or doesn't mean -- and then promoting it to one another, and criticising, sanctioning and persecuting people who resist their claims.

And since the claims are political, claimants are subject to the same scrutiny of motivation, expertise, character and history as the claimants of any other political ideology.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 3:34:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 12:08:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Acting as a means towards an end establishes intent.

I think we can agree that the word "Acting" is only being used here as a description of what we see happening.

"Means" however in this sentence is being used as in "meaning to", as in "intended", as in "intent". So your argument here is literally "Acting as an intent towards an end establishes intent". And in that case congratulations, I agree. Now all you have to do is establish that nature is acting with an intent towards some end.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 4:47:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 2:32:12 PM, Preceptor wrote:
At 4/19/2015 10:48:36 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 4/19/2015 10:17:40 AM, Preceptor wrote:
Do not forget the "CELL" which has its own scientific theory.

You start out with cell theory yet wind up talking about abiogenesis.

No. I remained on the cell theory.

Your argument revolves around there being a "first cell" which in your version is addmitedly not abiogenesis, but you cannot claim one part of science while ignoring the ones that don't fit the conclusion you want to draw. Abiogenesis is the prevailing view of the scientific community. If you think they are wrong then write a paper.

Cells exist yet they cannot come about unless by another cell and any other explanation is special pleading as the theory states as such.

No, the theory is not about the origin of a cell or cells in general.

You then have no idea what the theory states. It states that cells only come about by another cell. No one even addressed origins of the cell.

Energy flow occurs within cells.
Heredity information (DNA) is passed on from cell to cell.
All cells have the same basic chemical composition.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Try a reliable source.

The modern tenets of the Cell Theory include:
1. all known living things are made up of cells.
2. the cell is structural & functional unit of all living things.
3. all cells come from pre-existing cells by division.
(Spontaneous Generation does not occur).
4. cells contains hereditary information which is passed from
cell to cell during cell division.
5. All cells are basically the same in chemical composition.
6. all energy flow (metabolism & biochemistry) of life occurs
within cells.
http://www.bio.miami.edu...

Fine, you got theory that makes claims on how cells originate from other cells, but that is irrelevant to my central point. Abiogenesis means that life arose from non-life, but the lines are blured. Are viruses alive? Are prions alive?
What 3. refers to is that all currently or allready observed cells originated from other cells, not where cells came from in the beginning.

Therefore a cell can only exist in this universe unless a cell or cells placed them inside this universe.
A cell is the most basic form of life therefore a life exist outside this universe whom placed cells inside this universe.[1] This does not mean "GOD" but suggest a life which existed before this universe and planted life in this universe.

Which implies that your god consists of cells? It should be obvious that this is incompatible with your faith, since cells are matter and matter cannot create other matter out of nothing.

This is not incompatible with my religion.

Yes, proposing that your God, who is desribed as incorporal, consists of something corporal is contrary to your religion.
You are saying that God:

1. Consists of at least one cell
2. which is a structural & functional unit,
3. came form pre-existing cells by division
4. and has a chemical compostion

Just iterating parts of the theory. This is incompatible with christianity.

Moreover
Cells exist yet they cannot come about unless by another cell
This is applicable to your god to since
any other explanation is special pleading

From which follows that you still wind up with an infinite regress.

[1] This is a complete non sequitur.

No. The answer is life (the cell) has always existed in some form or another.

Im not sure whether you are responding to the infinite regress or the [1] part but anyway:

Infinite Regress:
If you don't reject the regress itself, then yes cells (not life, blured lines) allways existed in some form. This means that, even if we accept that somehow, sometime these cells came from a trancendental realm into our physical world, your God is not the endpoint, he originated from other cells, too, which in turn is incompatible with Christianity as God would not be the supreme being but a supreme being.

God is a non-sequitur:
Recall that 1. says that all known living things are made up of cells. This means that an alien race which somehow not resembles life as we know it (cells) is still the likelier option than a disembodied mind.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Preceptor
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 5:48:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 4:47:30 PM, Fkkize wrote:

Your argument revolves around there being a "first cell" which in your version is addmitedly not abiogenesis, but you cannot claim one part of science while ignoring the ones that don't fit the conclusion you want to draw. Abiogenesis is the prevailing view of the scientific community. If you think they are wrong then write a paper.

I have took a scientific theory which is a central point of biology and hit a main tenant of the theory which holds true to what everyone on this planet observes everyday. This theory simply shows how contradictory the main stream scientific community is.

Cells exist yet they cannot come about unless by another cell and any other explanation is special pleading as the theory states as such.

No, the theory is not about the origin of a cell or cells in general.

You then have no idea what the theory states. It states that cells only come about by another cell. No one even addressed origins of the cell.

Energy flow occurs within cells.
Heredity information (DNA) is passed on from cell to cell.
All cells have the same basic chemical composition.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Try a reliable source.

The modern tenets of the Cell Theory include:
1. all known living things are made up of cells.
2. the cell is structural & functional unit of all living things.
3. all cells come from pre-existing cells by division.
(Spontaneous Generation does not occur).
4. cells contains hereditary information which is passed from
cell to cell during cell division.
5. All cells are basically the same in chemical composition.
6. all energy flow (metabolism & biochemistry) of life occurs
within cells.
http://www.bio.miami.edu...

Fine, you got theory that makes claims on how cells originate from other cells, but that is irrelevant to my central point. Abiogenesis means that life arose from non-life, but the lines are blured. Are viruses alive? Are prions alive?
What 3. refers to is that all currently or allready observed cells originated from other cells, not where cells came from in the beginning.

All I did which agree in every part of observation and this theory. I stated that cells are the simpliest form of life, cells exist, this universe at some point did not exist, therefore cells have to be put in this universe from a cell outside this universe. This does not conclude God but has attributes of God.

Therefore a cell can only exist in this universe unless a cell or cells placed them inside this universe.
A cell is the most basic form of life therefore a life exist outside this universe whom placed cells inside this universe.[1] This does not mean "GOD" but suggest a life which existed before this universe and planted life in this universe.

Which implies that your god consists of cells? It should be obvious that this is incompatible with your faith, since cells are matter and matter cannot create other matter out of nothing.

This is not incompatible with my religion.

Yes, proposing that your God, who is desribed as incorporal, consists of something corporal is contrary to your religion.

Again no it is not. God is described as incorporal but also described as corporal. God is described as both and as such can be both when ever He chooses. God is not restricted to your limited science.

You are saying that God:

1. Consists of at least one cell
2. which is a structural & functional unit,
3. came form pre-existing cells by division
4. and has a chemical compostion

Just iterating parts of the theory. This is incompatible with christianity.

This theory is by human's limited thinking and knowledge. If God exist then this theory is beneath Him and hence forth we do not know everything cells can do and be not to mention God.

Moreover
Cells exist yet they cannot come about unless by another cell
This is applicable to your god to since
any other explanation is special pleading

From which follows that you still wind up with an infinite regress.

[1] This is a complete non sequitur.

No. The answer is life (the cell) has always existed in some form or another.

Im not sure whether you are responding to the infinite regress or the [1] part but anyway:

Infinite Regress:
If you don't reject the regress itself, then yes cells (not life, blured lines) allways existed in some form. This means that, even if we accept that somehow, sometime these cells came from a trancendental realm into our physical world, your God is not the endpoint, he originated from other cells, too, which in turn is incompatible with Christianity as God would not be the supreme being but a supreme being.

God is a non-sequitur:
Recall that 1. says that all known living things are made up of cells. This means that an alien race which somehow not resembles life as we know it (cells) is still the likelier option than a disembodied mind.

Actually the so called aliens need a source of their cells also and yes we regress.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 6:08:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 5:48:27 PM, Preceptor wrote:
I have took a scientific theory which is a central point of biology and hit a main tenant of the theory which holds true to what everyone on this planet observes everyday. This theory simply shows how contradictory the main stream scientific community is.

Sure, scientific theories contradict each other all the time, that was allways the case and will probably allways be the case, noone is claiming scientific absolutism and it does not discredit science.

All I did which agree in every part of observation and this theory. I stated that cells are the simpliest form of life, cells exist, this universe at some point did not exist, therefore cells have to be put in this universe from a cell outside this universe. This does not conclude God but has attributes of God.

You still presuppose that abiogenesis is not an option.
You explicitely say that a cell and God have some shared attributes (how would we know since you think we cannot grasp things as they realy are as you claim later), so you either entertain the possibility of God being corporal or of cells being incorporal. Both are nonsensical.

Again no it is not. God is described as incorporal but also described as corporal. God is described as both and as such can be both when ever He chooses.

Citation needed.

God is not restricted to your limited science.

This theory is by human's limited thinking and knowledge. If God exist then this theory is beneath Him and hence forth we do not know everything cells can do and be not to mention God.

Let me make this clear: I am the last person on earth to argue about God using science, the cell theory proof (hint, clue whatever I recognize that you don't actualy think of it as proof) of God is something you came up with.
You started of with an appeal to what we know and then insist that we are to limited to really understand things.

Actually the so called aliens need a source of their cells also and yes we regress.

'an alien race which somehow not resembles life as we know it (cells)' no, I explicitely said that they are not cell based.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 6:34:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 11:37:28 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheism basically claims that all gods are mythical and no gods exist in REALITY.

Whether a character named God exists in REALITY or not depends on how you personally define and perceive the word GOD.

Take a look at your own words and as an exercise in logic just replace the word God with the word Mother Nature.
Your argument applies to Mother Nature in exactly the same way as it applies to your God. Does that mean Mother Nature more than likely exists?

I see evidence for an intelligent creator of the universe. I give this label "God". If "Mother Nature" is defined as an intelligent creator of the universe, then yes, my arguments would apply equally because they'd be one in the same. If mother nature is not meant to be an intelligent creator of the universe then it would not apply the same way.

We see evidence of patterns in the universe and in nature on Earth. There is no evidence of any invisible supernatural characters in reality. Any so called evidence of supernatural characters exists only in myths which proves those characters are fictional since the only place to find them is in fictional stories.
We see evidence that physically existing things create physically existing things through the natural process of reproduction.
We can logically conclude from that evidence that LIFE itself creates LIFE. That makes LIFE the CREATOR. It does not make some invisible supernatural character a creator.

Your argument could apply to all mythical gods with imaginary supernatural powers. Therefore how is the argument exclusive in any way to some exclusive supernatural "Father God" who is supposedly the creator of the universe when Mother Nature could just as easily be that creator?

I haven't shown any arguments other than ones for intelligent design. So while God *could* have additional characteristics, this isn't what the arguments show. It depends on how you define "mother nature" in order to compare it with God as an explanation.

Design or patterns obviously exists in the universe. Calling it the design "intelligent" is nonsense since intelligence is a word which applies to the human mind not to any patterns in nature. All intelligent people can also clearly see that LIFE creates various designs through its own reproductive processes and the "design patterns" are passed down by LIFE through the seeds of LIFE which create LIFE after its own kind.
Some LIFE forms are intelligent and some things like plants obviously are not yet they still manage to reproduce after their own kind due to the "patterns" or "blueprints of reproduction" being an intricate part of the design itself. That ability to reproduce contains the design which ends in the product. The process is LIFE creating LIFE. It is easily observed by all who have eyes to see. That makes LIFE the REAL CREATOR of LIFE. It does not make some mystical invisible supernatural creator the originator of Life.

In reality LIFE is not created by some supernatural entity but by LIFE itself.
LIFE itself IS the creator of LIFE.
It really makes no difference how people PERSONIFY LIFE or what name they give to it. LIFE by any other name still does exactly the same as it always has done for all eternity through its MANY CYCLES.
LIFE is a REALITY which can be observed at work daily.
Call it God or Mother Nature or Zeus if you like. Your arguments apply to LIFE itself in reality and do not prove that any invisible characters exist at all.
Trying to prove God most likely exists is no different to trying to prove Mother Nature most likely exists.
You CANNOT prove the character exists when the character is nothing but a PERSONIFICATION of a PROCESS, a PRINCIPLE, an ENERGY.

The character remains fictional in spite of the character REPRESENTING something in reality.

I don't see God as a personification but apparently you do.

You seem to imagine an invisible "supernatural being" in the form of a man and seem to claim that invisible supernatural person created the universe.
Do you perceive God as an invisible supernatural person or not?
Do you also think Mother Nature is a supernatural person who creates Nature?

Just because patterns and designs exist in Nature does not mean an invisible supernatural person created or is creating the repetitive designs. We observe Nature creating Nature, Life creating Life. The "CREATOR" is perfectly observable to those who can actually SEE Nature and SEE LIFE and SEE how it reproduces ITSELF. Only the BLIND cannot SEE it.
The CREATOR of the CREATION is the CREATION itself. Past creation produced present creation which in turn creates future creation.
Creation simply RECYCLES itself through the many processes of reproduction where the old is constantly dying and being replaced by the new. The "Father"(the old) passes away and is constantly being replaced by the "Son" ( the new) which is nothing but a recycled version of the old... "A chip off the old block"

That process of LIFE is logically ETERNAL due to there being no beginning or end to the INFINITE CYCLE.
The CYCLE IS the Beginning and End of ITSELF. It lives and dies at the very same time.
When you draw a circle, the beginning and end of that circle is in exactly the same place.
If you do not end the circle/CYCLE in exactly the same place as you began it, you do not end up with a complete circle/ CYCLE.

LIFE is an ETERNAL CYCLE. It is NOT a straight line which is "X billions" of years long.