Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism vs intelligent design

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe
- mathematical structure of the universe
- natural telos
- information-richness in conscious experiences
- reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

What infers atheism?
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 4:11:36 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe
- mathematical structure of the universe
- natural telos
- information-richness in conscious experiences
- reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

What infers atheism?
The god claimant's inability to provide any supporting evidence at all.
Pretty conclusive.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 4:57:42 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe
- mathematical structure of the universe
- natural telos
- information-richness in conscious experiences
- reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

What infers atheism?

The fact that no God (as generally defined) exists.

Also, atheism isn't diametrically opposed to intelligent design. Since intelligent design doesn't necessarily entail God, which is the only epistemological claim that atheism rejects.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 6:11:53 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 4:11:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe
- mathematical structure of the universe
- natural telos
- information-richness in conscious experiences
- reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

What infers atheism?
The god claimant's inability to provide any supporting evidence at all.
Pretty conclusive.

I dedicated a whole thread to it. Remember? You ignored it to protect your atheistic worldview.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 9:18:53 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 6:11:53 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:11:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe
- mathematical structure of the universe
- natural telos
- information-richness in conscious experiences
- reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

What infers atheism?
The god claimant's inability to provide any supporting evidence at all.
Pretty conclusive.

I dedicated a whole thread to it. Remember? You ignored it to protect your atheistic worldview.
And that's why I said this, your drivel isn't evidence.
The god claimant's inability to provide any supporting evidence at all.
Pretty conclusive.
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 10:15:44 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe

Fine tuning? The universe is largely chaotic.

- mathematical structure of the universe

Our physics and math systems are based upon observation of the universe. Obviously there would be mathematical structure in the universe -- mathematics is based upon the universe.

- natural telos

No one has ever effectively demonstrated that anything has a "natural purpose".

- information-richness in conscious experiences

How does this imply intelligent design?

- reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

I don't think you understand the implications of QM.

What infers atheism?

A lack of evidence for God, simply put.

--------------------

My fundamental problem with the intelligent design argument is that we have no known alternative to compare it to. We certainly know a lot about this universe, but we know absolutely nothing about the other universes that might have existed had the "dice been rolled" a different way.

The argument usually boils down to "but look, the universe is so well suited for human life", while the more accurate statement is "human life is well suited for this universe." If the laws of physics were different, it is completely possible that a species would exist in ways that we cannot fathom. (Because we only understand the physical laws of this universe.)

If there was some 0.000001% chance that the universe would have the proper laws to spawn human life, 100% of human experience would witness only this 0.000001% eventuality. In other words, we have nothing to compare our existence to. We can't reasonably call this universe "perfectly suited for life", because we simply are incapable of experiencing all the the possible universe configurations that never happened.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 11:14:17 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What infers atheism?
Ignorance, superstition, vanity and ambition predict religion better than religion has ever predicted significant, specific, testable insights about the world.
Willows
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 1:40:32 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe
- mathematical structure of the universe
- natural telos
- information-richness in conscious experiences
- reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

What infers atheism?

You have to bare in mind that atheism is a neutral position. Since atheists do not have a belief or are influenced to believe a faith we remain open to look at and assess different theories.
Evolution by way of natural selection is by far the most plausible explanation of life based on thoroughly researched, tangible evidence. The problem with other theories (including intelligent design) is that they have been disproved by evolution.
So, its not a matter of atheism being the opposite to intelligent design. Its a matter of atheists logically and quite rightly rejecting a theory that loses by default.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 1:57:28 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 4:57:42 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe
- mathematical structure of the universe
- natural telos
- information-richness in conscious experiences
- reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

What infers atheism?

The fact that no God (as generally defined) exists.

This is a "fact"? Since when?

Also, atheism isn't diametrically opposed to intelligent design. Since intelligent design doesn't necessarily entail God, which is the only epistemological claim that atheism rejects.

intelligent design:
"the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity."

The real difference is whether existence was ultimately derivative from mind or mindlessness. Intelligent design would mean that existence was derivative from mind and atheism would entail existence was derivative from mindlessness. So they are diametrically opposite in that regard.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 1:58:40 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 4:11:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe
- mathematical structure of the universe
- natural telos
- information-richness in conscious experiences
- reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

What infers atheism?
The god claimant's inability to provide any supporting evidence at all.
Pretty conclusive.

the evidence is a few sentences above you.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 2:25:42 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 1:57:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:57:42 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe
- mathematical structure of the universe
- natural telos
- information-richness in conscious experiences
- reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

What infers atheism?

The fact that no God (as generally defined) exists.

This is a "fact"? Since when?

Since the beginning of time I presume.

Unless a God has existed and 'died' sometime in the past, or future. Atheism would be a sound position even if that were the case I would think (since God technically doesn't exist *now*)... hmm... interesting...

Also, atheism isn't diametrically opposed to intelligent design. Since intelligent design doesn't necessarily entail God, which is the only epistemological claim that atheism rejects.

intelligent design:
"the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity."

And said intelligent entity may or may not be a God.

And given the definition of atheism

Atheism
1. Lack of belief in the existence of a god(s)
2. Belief in the non-existence of any god(s).

They aren't mutually exclusive.

The real difference is whether existence was ultimately derivative from mind or mindlessness. Intelligent design would mean that existence was derivative from mind and atheism would entail existence was derivative from mindlessness. So they are diametrically opposite in that regard.

Actually no. Atheism entails no god. Full stop. This isn't exactly hard logic to deduce. One can be coherently both an atheist and an intelligent design believer (and indeed such people do exist, I don't count myself as one of then, obviously).
lightseeker
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 2:29:55 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe
- mathematical structure of the universe
- natural telos
- information-richness in conscious experiences
- reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

What infers atheism?

intelligence design is presented as pseudo science in US and I guess many other countries in the world.
though it gives perfect reason as to why life can't just be created out of accident.
I saw a documentary once, which was about persecution of scientists who were promoting intelligent design in universities.
and even though Darwinian theory is not really proven, there are huge number of people who are teaching it as a fundamental truth about this world.

I think it all goes back to US' policy about eradicating notion God or religion in the world which also shows in their one dollar bill.

but, truth will emerge victoriously in the end.
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 2:48:56 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 10:15:44 AM, Cobalt wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe

Fine tuning? The universe is largely chaotic.

No, it really is not. At it's most fundamental level, existence as we know it is well ordered, in that the energy from which it all springs can only be expressed in certain inter-related ways, but not in any or all ways. And it is the order (limitations) within that expression of energy that determines the nature of all that exists. Everything that exists, exists because of that energy and the limiting order inherent within it.

- mathematical structure of the universe

Our physics and math systems are based upon observation of the universe. Obviously there would be mathematical structure in the universe -- mathematics is based upon the universe.

I agree. Mathematics is just a conceptual language that we use to define and convey our experience of physical reality to each other.

- natural telos

No one has ever effectively demonstrated that anything has a "natural purpose".

It's not something that can be "demonstrated". Purpose, in this instance, is a philosophical proposition, not an objective physical function. It can't be objectively demonstrated. It must be philosophically reasoned. And the fact that existence is the result of some meta-existential order does imply, rationally, that there would be a purpose to that order. Even though we do not know what that purpose, is, or the origin of it's imposition.

- information-richness in conscious experiences

How does this imply intelligent design?

The existence of order, manifested and exemplified by all that is, implies a purpose. And thereby, intent. And a purpose and intent, to us, implies some degree of intelligence.

My fundamental problem with the intelligent design argument is that we have no known alternative to compare it to.

I think the obvious philosophical alternative would be chaos. If existence were ever chaos, alone; chaos, alone, is all it could ever be. Energy that can express itself in any way, all the time, cannot become ordered on it's own. Some sort of limitation must be imposed for any sort of complex expression to occur, and 'stick' long enough to be built upon.

We certainly know a lot about this universe, but we know absolutely nothing about the other universes that might have existed had the "dice been rolled" a different way.

The "what ifs" are infinite, and infinitely unknowable. The can't be allowed to outweigh what we think we can know.

The argument usually boils down to "but look, the universe is so well suited for human life", while the more accurate statement is "human life is well suited for this universe." If the laws of physics were different, it is completely possible that a species would exist in ways that we cannot fathom. (Because we only understand the physical laws of this universe.)

But the laws of physics are not anything other than what they are. Nor can we conceive of how they could be. And they are as they are because there is order inherent within the energy from which everything that has ever happened, happened. So the alternative existence theory is a 'straw man' proposition of the highest order of straw men propositions. As I see it.

If there was some 0.000001% chance that the universe would have the proper laws to spawn human life, 100% of human experience would witness only this 0.000001% eventuality. In other words, we have nothing to compare our existence to. We can't reasonably call this universe "perfectly suited for life", because we simply are incapable of experiencing all the the possible universe configurations that never happened.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 5:16:28 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe
- mathematical structure of the universe
- natural telos
- information-richness in conscious experiences
- reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

What infers atheism?

You tell me the implications of these facts:

1. 99.9% of all species that ever existed on this planet have now gone extinct, a very significant portion of which have underdone extinction before Mankind ever set foot on the planet.

2. The sun will eventually die out, making life on Earth unsustainable. Andromeda is on a collision course with the Milky Way, a remote but inevitable event that will also annihilate any chances life has to strive in the vicinity.

3. The highly likely heat-death of the Universe will render life impossible altogether.

You be honest and you tell me what the implications of these facts are.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 10:38:27 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 5:16:28 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe
- mathematical structure of the universe
- natural telos
- information-richness in conscious experiences
- reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

What infers atheism?

You tell me the implications of these facts:

1. 99.9% of all species that ever existed on this planet have now gone extinct, a very significant portion of which have underdone extinction before Mankind ever set foot on the planet.

2. The sun will eventually die out, making life on Earth unsustainable. Andromeda is on a collision course with the Milky Way, a remote but inevitable event that will also annihilate any chances life has to strive in the vicinity.

3. The highly likely heat-death of the Universe will render life impossible altogether.

You be honest and you tell me what the implications of these facts are.

Let me answer. If it is design, it is either unintelligent or insane.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,327
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 2:22:52 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 1:40:32 PM, Willows wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe
- mathematical structure of the universe
- natural telos
- information-richness in conscious experiences
- reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

What infers atheism?

You have to bare in mind that atheism is a neutral position. Since atheists do not have a belief or are influenced to believe a faith we remain open to look at and assess different theories.

Really?, open as in how precisely? could you name a few other than materialism?

Evolution by way of natural selection is by far the most plausible explanation of life based on thoroughly researched, tangible evidence. The problem with other theories (including intelligent design) is that they have been disproved by evolution.

Wow, first of all it disproves nothing, it only shows how things evolve not why they began to, or why anything at all began. You need to reassess that.

So, its not a matter of atheism being the opposite to intelligent design. Its a matter of atheists logically and quite rightly rejecting a theory that loses by default.

Atheism is nothing but a leech that rides the back of materialism and falsely claims science/ToE shows God does not exist, or that intelligent design loses by default. What a joke.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 3:22:05 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 1:57:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:57:42 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe
- mathematical structure of the universe
- natural telos
- information-richness in conscious experiences
- reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

What infers atheism?

The fact that no God (as generally defined) exists.

This is a "fact"? Since when?

Also, atheism isn't diametrically opposed to intelligent design. Since intelligent design doesn't necessarily entail God, which is the only epistemological claim that atheism rejects.

intelligent design:
"the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity."

The real difference is whether existence was ultimately derivative from mind or mindlessness. Intelligent design would mean that existence was derivative from mind and atheism would entail existence was derivative from mindlessness. So they are diametrically opposite in that regard.

'Mind' does not equal 'god'. Envisage specifically qualified the word god with 'as usually defined'.

God (definition) - 'the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe.'

source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...

For one to rule, one must intervene otherwise there is no difference between ruling and not ruling. One can believe that consciousness exists outside of the mind without believing that some deity is intervening in human's daily affairs (particularly in the matter of obsessing about how humans may use or misuse their genitals).
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 3:32:45 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 3:22:05 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/30/2016 1:57:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:57:42 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe
- mathematical structure of the universe
- natural telos
- information-richness in conscious experiences
- reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

What infers atheism?

The fact that no God (as generally defined) exists.

This is a "fact"? Since when?

Also, atheism isn't diametrically opposed to intelligent design. Since intelligent design doesn't necessarily entail God, which is the only epistemological claim that atheism rejects.

intelligent design:
"the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity."

The real difference is whether existence was ultimately derivative from mind or mindlessness. Intelligent design would mean that existence was derivative from mind and atheism would entail existence was derivative from mindlessness. So they are diametrically opposite in that regard.

'Mind' does not equal 'god'. Envisage specifically qualified the word god with 'as usually defined'.

God (definition) - 'the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe.'

source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...

For one to rule, one must intervene otherwise there is no difference between ruling and not ruling. One can believe that consciousness exists outside of the mind without believing that some deity is intervening in human's daily affairs (particularly in the matter of obsessing about how humans may use or misuse their genitals).

So explain it to us.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 3:58:31 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 10:15:44 AM, Cobalt wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe

Fine tuning? The universe is largely chaotic.

fine tuning just means that the constants that govern our universe fall within a very narrow life-permitting window.

- mathematical structure of the universe

Our physics and math systems are based upon observation of the universe. Obviously there would be mathematical structure in the universe -- mathematics is based upon the universe.

Mathematics is an abstraction of reality. This abstraction mirrors reality perfectly. We can predict certain phenomena with mathematical certainty. A mathematically ordered universe infers intelligent design.

- natural telos

No one has ever effectively demonstrated that anything has a "natural purpose".

Do you think your brain or heart has a purpose?

- information-richness in conscious experiences

How does this imply intelligent design?

how doesn't it? We wouldn't expect information-rich experiences to come from a mindless reality.

- reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

I don't think you understand the implications of QM.

Why?

What infers atheism?

A lack of evidence for God, simply put.

atheism, meaning "lacking belief" has no ontology. If you're referring to atheism as "disbelief in God" then lack of evidence is a rationally unjustifiable reason to disbelieve in anything.

--------------------

My fundamental problem with the intelligent design argument is that we have no known alternative to compare it to. We certainly know a lot about this universe, but we know absolutely nothing about the other universes that might have existed had the "dice been rolled" a different way.

Intelligent design vs. a universe born from mindless randomness. We can conceive of how the universe could've been different.

The argument usually boils down to "but look, the universe is so well suited for human life", while the more accurate statement is "human life is well suited for this universe." If the laws of physics were different, it is completely possible that a species would exist in ways that we cannot fathom. (Because we only understand the physical laws of this universe.)

We can only make inferences. The fine tuning of the universe infers intelligent design rather than randomness.

If there was some 0.000001% chance that the universe would have the proper laws to spawn human life, 100% of human experience would witness only this 0.000001% eventuality. In other words, we have nothing to compare our existence to. We can't reasonably call this universe "perfectly suited for life", because we simply are incapable of experiencing all the the possible universe configurations that never happened.

Under this logic, if there's a 1 in 10^10^10^10^10^100000000000 power that it could've occurred by chance then it definitely occurred by chance. No, we need to make an inference to the best explanation. Technically there's a chance that wind and erosion could sequence the English alphabet in the sand but that's not an explanation anyone would be willing to consider.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 4:07:41 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 11:14:17 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What infers atheism?
Ignorance, superstition, vanity and ambition predict religion better than religion has ever predicted significant, specific, testable insights about the world.

Scientism is philosophically unsound. It ascribes objective value to knowledge while denying objective value as a possibility. It's contradictory to advocate that humanity should pursue certain ends while holding a worldview that humanity has no intrinsic ends.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 5:16:20 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 1:58:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:11:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe
- mathematical structure of the universe
- natural telos
- information-richness in conscious experiences
- reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

What infers atheism?
The god claimant's inability to provide any supporting evidence at all.
Pretty conclusive.

the evidence is a few sentences above you.
Ah nope, no evidence there.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 5:35:58 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe

This is an assertion. Define fine tuning.

- mathematical structure of the universe

How does math prove God?

- natural telos

Pure assertion.

- information-richness in conscious experiences

How does thi prove God?

- reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

What is QM? And how is reality mental when reality isn't defined by human perception?

What infers atheism?

The existence of a bunch of preaching nut jobs like yourself who all claim to know the truth yet all of your truths are contradictory. The fact none of your claims are verifiable. The logical contradictions of an all powerful being etc.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 6:27:14 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 4:07:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/30/2016 11:14:17 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What infers atheism?
Ignorance, superstition, vanity and ambition predict religion better than religion has ever predicted significant, specific, testable insights about the world.
Scientism is philosophically unsound.
I'm not clear that scientism is other than a straw-man, Ben. I've never met a scientist or indeed anyone who identifies as a 'scientismist'. I myself identify as an empiricist for pragmatic reasons, and view science as simply the best way we have to do empiricism presently.

Regardless, ignorance, superstition, vanity and ambition do predict religion better than religion has predicted anything significant. The invalidation of empiricism, should that occur, still wouldn't remedy widespread theological ignorance, incompetence, dishonesty and disrespect.

It ascribes objective value to knowledge
I note you're treating knowledge as objective and empirical for this discussion then. That's interesting, because I often see you treating it as subjective and Platonic.

I don't believe empiricism alone prescribes what value knowledge should have, Ben. However it can observe what value knowledge does have to people, and we can observe that people and societies value accurate prediction highly, so the widespread benefit of empiricism is evident, as the widespread benefit of lying about knowledge is not.

I also note that the 'is-ought' question is largely invoked as distraction from the fact no religion has ever successfully justified lying to its own adherents about its ignorance and error. Asking what ethics are and who authorised them is the sort of excuse you'd expect from the CEO of Enron or Lehman Brothers, not someone on a quest to understand human dignity.

while denying objective value as a possibility.
So you've asserted, Ben. However, to be legitimate as a universal absolute, a doctrine must at minimum be scrupulously and endlessly accurate in significant predictions..

Theology fails that test, so whatever absolute you might hope for, it cannot be the one you presently uphold.

It's contradictory to advocate that humanity should pursue certain ends while holding a worldview that humanity has no intrinsic ends.
How quickly you fled your original question: what does atheism infer, to hide in a different one: what ought humans do?

Let's suppose humans ought to do something more than living pragmatically day to day as best they can. I endorse that, and am happy to support the quest to find what, if anything, that might be. Yet does that legitimise the ignorance, superstition and deceit handed them by theology?

If you think it does, please be honest, acknowledge it and so argue. Else, admit that you too think it doesn't. At which point I would suggest that your search for eternal meaning from a transient life is a subjective problem not everybody shares.

But perhaps you think it's a normal to want to live happily forever for doing nothing more than observing the right rituals and creed?

I think it's not normal, Ben. I think it's a relatively recent invention.

Consider: most polytheistic beliefs don't have a blessed afterlife. Theirs are typically dark, cthonic, pointless and terminated by forgetfulness and oblivion. Ancient Judaism too is silent on afterlife. Observant Jews never needed to be bribed with it.

I think you've been sold spiritual hair-restorer, Ben, by populist and long-dead Iron Age marketeers toadying up to failing Roman emperors with promises of cultural unity for cheap. Having created a want, they persuaded you it was an urgent need, and in their flattery you believed them. They sold you a pup, and now you're trying to sell it to everyone else to justify your purchase.
Willows
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 7:23:20 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 2:22:52 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 6/30/2016 1:40:32 PM, Willows wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe
- mathematical structure of the universe
- natural telos
- information-richness in conscious experiences
- reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

What infers atheism?

You have to bare in mind that atheism is a neutral position. Since atheists do not have a belief or are influenced to believe a faith we remain open to look at and assess different theories.

Really?, open as in how precisely? could you name a few other than materialism?

Evolution by way of natural selection is by far the most plausible explanation of life based on thoroughly researched, tangible evidence. The problem with other theories (including intelligent design) is that they have been disproved by evolution.

Wow, first of all it disproves nothing, it only shows how things evolve not why they began to, or why anything at all began. You need to reassess that.

So, its not a matter of atheism being the opposite to intelligent design. Its a matter of atheists logically and quite rightly rejecting a theory that loses by default.

Atheism is nothing but a leech that rides the back of materialism and falsely claims science/ToE shows God does not exist, or that intelligent design loses by default. What a joke.

Completely wrong.
No reputable researcher in recent times has ever put forward intelligent design as being plausible. Evolution by natural selection disproves life having been started by a creator. The evidence is abundant and irrefutable. The proven facts also cast a doubt on the credibility of the bible.

There are theories relating to quantum physics as to how matter came about but none has been proven.
Nor has creationism ever been proven, in fact it has been completely disproven.
My point is that the origin of matter has not been completely explained although many advances in research have brought us closer to an answer. it is incorrect to assume however that creation is the answer especially in view of the fact that not one shred of evidence has ever confirmed such.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 7:59:34 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 3:58:31 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/30/2016 10:15:44 AM, Cobalt wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe

Fine tuning? The universe is largely chaotic.

fine tuning just means that the constants that govern our universe fall within a very narrow life-permitting window.

- mathematical structure of the universe

Our physics and math systems are based upon observation of the universe. Obviously there would be mathematical structure in the universe -- mathematics is based upon the universe.

Mathematics is an abstraction of reality. This abstraction mirrors reality perfectly. We can predict certain phenomena with mathematical certainty. A mathematically ordered universe infers intelligent design.

- natural telos

No one has ever effectively demonstrated that anything has a "natural purpose".

Do you think your brain or heart has a purpose?

- information-richness in conscious experiences

How does this imply intelligent design?

how doesn't it? We wouldn't expect information-rich experiences to come from a mindless reality.

- reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

I don't think you understand the implications of QM.

Why?

What infers atheism?

A lack of evidence for God, simply put.

atheism, meaning "lacking belief" has no ontology. If you're referring to atheism as "disbelief in God" then lack of evidence is a rationally unjustifiable reason to disbelieve in anything.

--------------------

My fundamental problem with the intelligent design argument is that we have no known alternative to compare it to. We certainly know a lot about this universe, but we know absolutely nothing about the other universes that might have existed had the "dice been rolled" a different way.

Intelligent design vs. a universe born from mindless randomness. We can conceive of how the universe could've been different.

The argument usually boils down to "but look, the universe is so well suited for human life", while the more accurate statement is "human life is well suited for this universe." If the laws of physics were different, it is completely possible that a species would exist in ways that we cannot fathom. (Because we only understand the physical laws of this universe.)

We can only make inferences. The fine tuning of the universe infers intelligent design rather than randomness.

If there was some 0.000001% chance that the universe would have the proper laws to spawn human life, 100% of human experience would witness only this 0.000001% eventuality. In other words, we have nothing to compare our existence to. We can't reasonably call this universe "perfectly suited for life", because we simply are incapable of experiencing all the the possible universe configurations that never happened.

Under this logic, if there's a 1 in 10^10^10^10^10^100000000000 power that it could've occurred by chance then it definitely occurred by chance. No, we need to make an inference to the best explanation. Technically there's a chance that wind and erosion could sequence the English alphabet in the sand but that's not an explanation anyone would be willing to consider.

Ben, I am still waiting for you to answer my questions. (please see my reply to you)
Yes, it is your prerogative not to answer.

But if you don't, the omission will be a strident indictment on your intellectual honesty.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 8:32:21 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 7:59:34 PM, Omniverse wrote:

Ben, I am still waiting for you to answer my questions. (please see my reply to you)
Yes, it is your prerogative not to answer.

But if you don't, the omission will be a strident indictment on your intellectual honesty.

You're new so you've yet to meet Ben. He's not an intellectual heavy lifter, he just makes speculation while calling it fact.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 11:12:58 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 5:16:28 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe
- mathematical structure of the universe
- natural telos
- information-richness in conscious experiences
- reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

What infers atheism?

You tell me the implications of these facts:

Before we begin, I'd like to note that none of my points were addressed. Here are my list of points that were skipped over:

fine tuning of the universe
mathematical structure of the universe
natural telos
information-richness in conscious experiences
reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

I will now address your case on why you believe the universe doesn't infer intelligent design.

1. 99.9% of all species that ever existed on this planet have now gone extinct, a very significant portion of which have underdone extinction before Mankind ever set foot on the planet.

Here's your logic

P1: If there's an intelligent designer, many species would not go extinct.
P2: Many species have gone extinct.
C: There is no intelligent designer

In order to show that this does not infer intelligent design, you would need to presume the ends of the designer. Maybe the designer doesn't have benevolent purposes. Maybe the designer wasn't involved with its creation except for in the beginning and just let nature run its course. Maybe the designer is a deistic God and once initial life forms were created everything played out via natural selection. It also may be the case that the designer is benevolent but creation became corrupted through an act of free will. You're missing the bigger picture here. How about the immense diversity and creativity expressed in the features of all living things? How about the orderliness of the life cycle and the interdependency of the food chain? What about the origin of the specified and complex information in the first DNA molecule? The apparent telos in the organs of living creatures?

2. The sun will eventually die out, making life on Earth unsustainable. Andromeda is on a collision course with the Milky Way, a remote but inevitable event that will also annihilate any chances life has to strive in the vicinity.

This presumes that if an intelligent designer designed the universe, it must exist eternally. Maybe the designer didn't intend for the universe to last forever and has the last minute of the universe calculated like clockwork. There's really not much of an argument against intelligent design here because it's relies on unwarranted assumptions.

3. The highly likely heat-death of the Universe will render life impossible altogether.

See answer to 2. above.

You be honest and you tell me what the implications of these facts are.

I addressed all of your points. Now it's your turn to be honest and return to mine.
Redfordnutt
Posts: 222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 11:35:25 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe
- mathematical structure of the universe
- natural telos
- information-richness in conscious experiences
- reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

What infers atheism?

That is a false dichotomy. When referring to the emergence of life it would more accurate to call it abiogenesis because atheism has no requirements to even have a view or make a standpoint on the origins of life.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 11:44:25 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 11:35:25 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe
- mathematical structure of the universe
- natural telos
- information-richness in conscious experiences
- reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

What infers atheism?

That is a false dichotomy. When referring to the emergence of life it would more accurate to call it abiogenesis because atheism has no requirements to even have a view or make a standpoint on the origins of life.

Abiogenesis is the position that life emerged from inorganic molecules. It's speculative.

abiogensis: "the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances."

The theory of evolution has no standpoint on the origins of life. I never said that atheists must have a standpoint on it. In order to have a logically coherent worldview there must exist some explanation though.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 11:46:38 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 4:11:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/30/2016 4:04:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design is the more plausible inference based on:

- fine tuning of the universe
- mathematical structure of the universe
- n2atural telos
- information-richness in conscious experiences
- reality being fundamentally mental as supported by QM

What infers atheism?
The god claimant's inability to provide any supporting evidence at all.
Pretty conclusive.
Well then your post is nothing but a current under evolved mutated accidental happenstance of a yet to be realized intelligence that, when scrutinized by future higher evolved mutated intelligence, will be subjected to being equated with what we currently would consider the incoherent ramblings of a less evolved intelligence. Ape on a qwerty for instance. Such is the argument from randomness. Your deluded into believing your current randomly acquire idea about language and words and what they mean is a delusion. Of course you can always make the contradictory claim that intelligence won't "evolve" to a higher state, or language won't eventually be negated by a higher evolved idea of it. But that's not consistent with your worldview. Your argument isn't intelligently designed it's accidentally assumed to be intelligent.