Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Fati's Killer Argument

dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 3:46:48 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Fati trots out the following supposedly killer argument for the existence of God at every opportunity. I have taken the liberty of formalizing and modifying it to be less vague and loose with terminology.

P1: Any repeating pattern must be the product of an intelligence.
P2: Life (DNA) is a repeating pattern.
C: Life (DNA) must be the product of an intelligence. Therefore God.

Note that Fati words P1 differently by talking about "choice" but this is no more than saying that there has to be an intelligence at work capable of making conscious choices.

Here are a couple of the problems with this argument which is really the argument for intelligent design (the teleological argument) dressed in different garb:

1) It is quite easy to find examples of repeating patterns in nature which are not the product of an intelligence, eg. crystals (including snowflakes), the rings of Saturn, etc.. Fati will counter this by saying God set up the physics by which these repeating patterns can occur. This is a fallacy, of course, since it assumes its conclusion.

2) Ignoring that P1 has been refuted, the conclusion only tells us that a (possibly) powerful intelligence created life. There is nothing we can infer beyond that, certainly not that it requires a creator god of the universe.

More discussion of the teleological argument can be found here:
http://rationalwiki.org...
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 7:15:59 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 3:46:48 AM, dee-em wrote:
Fati trots out the following supposedly killer argument for the existence of God at every opportunity. I have taken the liberty of formalizing and modifying it to be less vague and loose with terminology.

P1: Any repeating pattern must be the product of an intelligence.
P2: Life (DNA) is a repeating pattern.
C: Life (DNA) must be the product of an intelligence. Therefore God.

Note that Fati words P1 differently by talking about "choice" but this is no more than saying that there has to be an intelligence at work capable of making conscious choices.

Here are a couple of the problems with this argument which is really the argument for intelligent design (the teleological argument) dressed in different garb:

1) It is quite easy to find examples of repeating patterns in nature which are not the product of an intelligence, eg. crystals (including snowflakes), the rings of Saturn, etc.. Fati will counter this by saying God set up the physics by which these repeating patterns can occur. This is a fallacy, of course, since it assumes its conclusion.

2) Ignoring that P1 has been refuted, the conclusion only tells us that a (possibly) powerful intelligence created life. There is nothing we can infer beyond that, certainly not that it requires a creator god of the universe.

More discussion of the teleological argument can be found here:
http://rationalwiki.org...

Really is quite a shame that people with such a low intelligence quotient are allowed to use the internet.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 11:02:15 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 3:46:48 AM, dee-em wrote:
Fati trots out the following supposedly killer argument for the existence of God at every opportunity. I have taken the liberty of formalizing and modifying it to be less vague and loose with terminology.

P1: Any repeating pattern must be the product of an intelligence.
P2: Life (DNA) is a repeating pattern.
C: Life (DNA) must be the product of an intelligence. Therefore God.

Note that Fati words P1 differently by talking about "choice" but this is no more than saying that there has to be an intelligence at work capable of making conscious choices.

Here are a couple of the problems with this argument which is really the argument for intelligent design (the teleological argument) dressed in different garb:

1) It is quite easy to find examples of repeating patterns in nature which are not the product of an intelligence, eg. crystals (including snowflakes), the rings of Saturn, etc.. Fati will counter this by saying God set up the physics by which these repeating patterns can occur. This is a fallacy, of course, since it assumes its conclusion.

2) Ignoring that P1 has been refuted, the conclusion only tells us that a (possibly) powerful intelligence created life. There is nothing we can infer beyond that, certainly not that it requires a creator god of the universe.

More discussion of the teleological argument can be found here:
http://rationalwiki.org...

Response: Now here is my actual argument:

Hypothesis: A repeating pattern can only originate from choice.

Test subject: You.

Experiment: Draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choosing to do so (Non-choice).

Conclusion: You failed.

Thus you have firsthand evidence that a repeating pattern cannot originate from non-choice, but choice. As such the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originated from choice, proving God's existence.

Common atheist/agnostic rebuttal:


Atheists/Agnostics say: We do have evidence of non-choice creating repeating patterns. Crystals, snowflakes, etc..

Response: If stating that non-choice can produce a repeating pattern because you have examples such as crystals, snowflakes, etc., then stating that non-choice CANNOT produce a repeating pattern is also true because we have an example of it not working (your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard without choice). As such, the argument for non-choice fails since it contradicts. Leaving the option of choice as the answer. Therefore, the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself proves originates from choice, proving God exist.

For it is not that the examples work and do not work, what makes it a contradiction is that THEY OPPOSE each other. Meaning the reasoning you use to favor your argument, also goes against it. You are claiming something is true, and THE REASON is because you have examples. Yet one can say that your argument is untrue. Why? Because we have examples. Notice, the very argument you are using goes against you. THAT IS WHY IT IS A CONTRADICTION. So non-choice fails as evidence, because the reason you use to favor it (because you have examples) also goes against you (there are examples). Thus the evidence is clear that a repeating pattern can only originate from choice, proving that the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originate from choice. Proving the existence of God.

You claim that your proof that non-choice created the pattern is because you did not see choice. Yet if you found an IPhone in the sand or on the street, and we ask was this IPhone created by choice or without choice, you would all say "someone chose to make it, despite not seeing choice. A blatant contradiction. Showing once again that non-choice is false since it is based on a contradiction, leaving choice as the option and proving God exist.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 11:34:41 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Fati trots out the following supposedly killer argument for the existence of God at every opportunity. I have taken the liberty of formalizing and modifying it to be less vague and loose with terminology.

P1: Any repeating pattern must be the product of an intelligence.
P2: Life (DNA) is a repeating pattern.
C: Life (DNA) must be the product of an intelligence. Therefore God.

Note that Fati words P1 differently by talking about "choice" but this is no more than saying that there has to be an intelligence at work capable of making conscious choices.

Here are a couple of the problems with this argument which is really the argument for intelligent design (the teleological argument) dressed in different garb:

1) It is quite easy to find examples of repeating patterns in nature which are not the product of an intelligence, eg. crystals (including snowflakes), the rings of Saturn, etc.. Fati will counter this by saying God set up the physics by which these repeating patterns can occur. This is a fallacy, of course, since it assumes its conclusion.

2) Ignoring that P1 has been refuted, the conclusion only tells us that a (possibly) powerful intelligence created life. There is nothing we can infer beyond that, certainly not that it requires a creator god of the universe.

More discussion of the teleological argument can be found here:
http://rationalwiki.org...

Response: Now here is my actual argument:

Hypothesis: A repeating pattern can only originate from choice.

Test subject: You.

Experiment: Draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choosing to do so (Non-choice).

Conclusion: You failed.

Thus you have firsthand evidence that a repeating pattern cannot originate from non-choice, but choice. As such the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originated from choice, proving God's existence.

Common atheist/agnostic rebuttal:


Atheists/Agnostics say: We do have evidence of non-choice creating repeating patterns. Crystals, snowflakes, etc..

Response: If stating that non-choice can produce a repeating pattern because you have examples such as crystals, snowflakes, etc., then stating that non-choice CANNOT produce a repeating pattern is also true because we have an example of it not working (your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard without choice). As such, the argument for non-choice fails since it contradicts. Leaving the option of choice as the answer. Therefore, the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself proves originates from choice, proving God exist.

False conclusions. Choice can fail to make a pattern, too, without choosing to do so. That is to say one can attempt to make a checkerboard pattern and fail.

Therefore we have choice being able and not being able to make a pattern. And non choice being able and not being able to make a pattern. This would make them -both- contradictory.

For it is not that the examples work and do not work, what makes it a contradiction is that THEY OPPOSE each other. Meaning the reasoning you use to favor your argument, also goes against it. You are claiming something is true, and THE REASON is because you have examples. Yet one can say that your argument is untrue. Why? Because we have examples. Notice, the very argument you are using goes against you. THAT IS WHY IT IS A CONTRADICTION. So non-choice fails as evidence, because the reason you use to favor it (because you have examples) also goes against you (there are examples). Thus the evidence is clear that a repeating pattern can only originate from choice, proving that the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originate from choice. Proving the existence of God.

I can come up with examples in which a repeating pattern is chosen, but is failed to be made. Sorry, Fatiah, this conditional fails as well.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 11:39:04 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 11:34:41 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

False conclusions. Choice can fail to make a pattern, too, without choosing to do so. That is to say one can attempt to make a checkerboard pattern and fail.

I can come up with examples in which a repeating pattern is chosen, but is failed to be made. Sorry, Fatiah, this conditional fails as well.


Response: Yet your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choice supports the fact that a repeating pattern can only originate from choice. Proving God exist.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 11:44:04 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 11:39:04 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/5/2016 11:34:41 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

False conclusions. Choice can fail to make a pattern, too, without choosing to do so. That is to say one can attempt to make a checkerboard pattern and fail.

I can come up with examples in which a repeating pattern is chosen, but is failed to be made. Sorry, Fatiah, this conditional fails as well.


Response: Yet your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choice supports the fact that a repeating pattern can only originate from choice. Proving God exist.

Wholly irrelevant.

If you are claiming that non-choice is contradictory and therefore not true (because you agree non-choice can make both pattern and non-pattern), then the same must be true of choice as well, as choice can make a pattern and non-pattern as well. You are being hypocritical in what you allow to pass for argumentation.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 11:46:25 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 11:44:04 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Wholly irrelevant.

If you are claiming that non-choice is contradictory and therefore not true (because you agree non-choice can make both pattern and non-pattern), then the same must be true of choice as well, as choice can make a pattern and non-pattern as well. You are being hypocritical in what you allow to pass for argumentation.

Response: Non-choice cannot originate any repeating patterns supported by your repeated failure to draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choice. So your own failure proves God exist as usual.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 11:48:36 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 11:46:25 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/5/2016 11:44:04 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Wholly irrelevant.

If you are claiming that non-choice is contradictory and therefore not true (because you agree non-choice can make both pattern and non-pattern), then the same must be true of choice as well, as choice can make a pattern and non-pattern as well. You are being hypocritical in what you allow to pass for argumentation.

Response: Non-choice cannot originate any repeating patterns supported by your repeated failure to draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choice. So your own failure proves God exist as usual.

And again, you are being hypocritical, you have already conceded that non-choice can make patterns (snowflakes, crystals).
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 11:54:17 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 11:48:36 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:


And again, you are being hypocritical, you have already conceded that non-choice can make patterns (snowflakes, crystals).

Response: Nowhere have I conceded that non-choice can make repeating patterns. Your lie fails.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 12:00:34 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 11:54:17 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/5/2016 11:48:36 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:


And again, you are being hypocritical, you have already conceded that non-choice can make patterns (snowflakes, crystals).

Response: Nowhere have I conceded that non-choice can make repeating patterns. Your lie fails.

"Response: If stating that non-choice can produce a repeating pattern because you have examples such as crystals, snowflakes, etc., then stating that non-choice CANNOT produce a repeating pattern is also true because we have an example of it not working (your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard without choice). As such, the argument for non-choice fails since it contradicts. Leaving the option of choice as the answer. Therefore, the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself proves originates from choice, proving God exist."

We are examining your argument here. The methodology by which you exclude non-choice/patterns assumes both prongs to be true, and is therefore contradictory.

In the mean time, what you posit (assuming its true) regarding choice making patterns is just as contradictory.

Your syllogisms are not being created equally.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 12:01:19 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Faust, I think you will have the same banging your head against a brick wall problem here as you had with zoinks.
Whilst I admire your patience and your willingness and ability to explain your position, sometimes it is better to let pondscum wallow in their natural environment.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 12:06:36 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 12:00:34 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

"Response: If stating that non-choice can produce a repeating pattern because you have examples such as crystals, snowflakes, etc., then stating that non-choice CANNOT produce a repeating pattern is also true because we have an example of it not working (your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard without choice). As such, the argument for non-choice fails since it contradicts. Leaving the option of choice as the answer. Therefore, the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself proves originates from choice, proving God exist."

We are examining your argument here. The methodology by which you exclude non-choice/patterns assumes both prongs to be true, and is therefore contradictory.

In the mean time, what you posit (assuming its true) regarding choice making patterns is just as contradictory.

Your syllogisms are not being created equally.

Response: Non-choice is excluded because of your repeated failure to draw a simple checkerboard without choice. So your own repeated failure supports my argument and shows that God exist.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 12:08:39 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 12:06:36 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/5/2016 12:00:34 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

"Response: If stating that non-choice can produce a repeating pattern because you have examples such as crystals, snowflakes, etc., then stating that non-choice CANNOT produce a repeating pattern is also true because we have an example of it not working (your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard without choice). As such, the argument for non-choice fails since it contradicts. Leaving the option of choice as the answer. Therefore, the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself proves originates from choice, proving God exist."

We are examining your argument here. The methodology by which you exclude non-choice/patterns assumes both prongs to be true, and is therefore contradictory.

In the mean time, what you posit (assuming its true) regarding choice making patterns is just as contradictory.

Your syllogisms are not being created equally.

Response: Non-choice is excluded because of your repeated failure to draw a simple checkerboard without choice. So your own repeated failure supports my argument and shows that God exist.


What I can do or not do is irrelevant, as that is not what is being relied on for a critique of how your reasoning is applied.


You are stating that non-choice is contradictory because XYZ.
Choice is just as contradictory based on the same XYZ.

You exclude non-choice as contradictory, but do not exclude choice as contradictory.

You are being hypocritical and irrational.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 12:14:57 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 12:08:39 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

You are stating that non-choice is contradictory because XYZ.
Choice is just as contradictory based on the same XYZ.

You exclude non-choice as contradictory, but do not exclude choice as contradictory.

You are being hypocritical and irrational.

Response: I'm stating non-choice is invalid because your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choice supports so. So your own failure supports that God exist.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 12:19:53 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 12:14:57 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/5/2016 12:08:39 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

You are stating that non-choice is contradictory because XYZ.
Choice is just as contradictory based on the same XYZ.

You exclude non-choice as contradictory, but do not exclude choice as contradictory.

You are being hypocritical and irrational.

Response: I'm stating non-choice is invalid because your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choice supports so. So your own failure supports that God exist.

This is not relevant to the critique, Fatiah.

While you attack something that is not being used against your reasoning, my appraisal stands: you are applying argumentation in an irrational manner. Your repetition of irrelevant circumstance with no defense of your argument leads to the conclusion that you have no defense or rebuttal.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 12:22:07 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 12:19:53 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

This is not relevant to the critique, Fatiah.

While you attack something that is not being used against your reasoning, my appraisal stands: you are applying argumentation in an irrational manner. Your repetition of irrelevant circumstance with no defense of your argument leads to the conclusion that you have no defense or rebuttal.

Response: My reasoning is based on your failure to draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choice. So your argument fails and my argument still stands.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 12:42:08 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 12:22:07 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/5/2016 12:19:53 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

This is not relevant to the critique, Fatiah.

While you attack something that is not being used against your reasoning, my appraisal stands: you are applying argumentation in an irrational manner. Your repetition of irrelevant circumstance with no defense of your argument leads to the conclusion that you have no defense or rebuttal.

Response: My reasoning is based on your failure to draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choice.

Since that was not part of my critique, and that is what you are basing your defense on, you are literally basing your reasoning on nothing relevant.

Thank you for your concession.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 12:59:53 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 12:42:08 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Since that was not part of my critique, and that is what you are basing your defense on, you are literally basing your reasoning on nothing relevant.

Thank you for your concession.

Response: Since your critique still fails to answer the actual challenge to create a simple checkerboard pattern without choice, then your critique is another failed rebuttal that supports the fact that a repeating pattern can only originate from choice. Thus the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originated from choice. Proving God exist.

Thanks for the confirmation.
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 1:29:26 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 12:59:53 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/5/2016 12:42:08 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Since that was not part of my critique, and that is what you are basing your defense on, you are literally basing your reasoning on nothing relevant.

Thank you for your concession.

Response: Since your critique still fails to answer the actual challenge to create a simple checkerboard pattern without choice, then your critique is another failed rebuttal that supports the fact that a repeating pattern can only originate from choice. Thus the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originated from choice. Proving God exist.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Just because a checkerboard pattern can result from "choice" it does not mean that all other patterns, especially those in nature result from choice. In fact evidence says this is not so.
As for your continual assertion that God created science and nature, prove it.
It is no use saying that is common sense or logic.
In the absence of any evidence your assertion that God exists must be dismissed, that is logical and common sense.
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 2:00:58 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 11:02:15 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/5/2016 3:46:48 AM, dee-em wrote:
Fati trots out the following supposedly killer argument for the existence of God at every opportunity. I have taken the liberty of formalizing and modifying it to be less vague and loose with terminology.

P1: Any repeating pattern must be the product of an intelligence.
P2: Life (DNA) is a repeating pattern.
C: Life (DNA) must be the product of an intelligence. Therefore God.

Note that Fati words P1 differently by talking about "choice" but this is no more than saying that there has to be an intelligence at work capable of making conscious choices.

Here are a couple of the problems with this argument which is really the argument for intelligent design (the teleological argument) dressed in different garb:

1) It is quite easy to find examples of repeating patterns in nature which are not the product of an intelligence, eg. crystals (including snowflakes), the rings of Saturn, etc.. Fati will counter this by saying God set up the physics by which these repeating patterns can occur. This is a fallacy, of course, since it assumes its conclusion.

2) Ignoring that P1 has been refuted, the conclusion only tells us that a (possibly) powerful intelligence created life. There is nothing we can infer beyond that, certainly not that it requires a creator god of the universe.

More discussion of the teleological argument can be found here:
http://rationalwiki.org...

Response: Now here is my actual argument:

Hypothesis: A repeating pattern can only originate from choice.

Test subject: You.

Experiment: Draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choosing to do so (Non-choice).

Conclusion: You failed.

Thus you have firsthand evidence that a repeating pattern cannot originate from non-choice, but choice.

False. You have evidence that a human cannot create a specific pattern (a checkerboard) without choosing to do so. That tells you nothing about repeating patterns produced by non-human processes where there is no concept of choice or non-choice. Your claim only holds, if it holds at all, for intelligent entities.

For example bees create a repeating pattern of hexagons with wax when constructing beehives. However, there is no conscious choice being made by individual bees. The behaviour is instinctual. This directly refutes your hypothesis.

As such the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originated from choice, proving God's existence.

See above and refutation 2) in my OP which you have ignored.


Common atheist/agnostic rebuttal:


Atheists/Agnostics say: We do have evidence of non-choice creating repeating patterns. Crystals, snowflakes, etc..

Response: If stating that non-choice can produce a repeating pattern ...

No, that is you putting words into our mouths. We state that nature can produce a repeating pattern. Choice or non-choice does not apply to inanimate materials.

... because you have examples such as crystals, snowflakes, etc., then stating that non-choice CANNOT produce a repeating pattern is also true because we have an example of it not working (your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard without choice).

That's only true (if at all) for a humans (intelligence) as already explained. Since the examples you list are non-intelligent in nature, you are commiting a fallacy by talking about choice and non-choice where the concept cannot apply. You move the goalposts by switching from non-human examples (no concept of choice or non-choice) back to the checkerboard challenge for humans (choice comes into play). This is your logic error.

As such, the argument for non-choice fails since it contradicts.

There is no contradiction since you have been shown that you are trying to apply choice/non-choice abilities to natural phenomena where it makes no sense. You can only contrive a contradiction by hiding the fact that you are at first addressing non-intelligence then shifting back to intelligence by a sleight of hand.

Leaving the option of choice as the answer. Therefore, the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself proves originates from choice, proving God exist.

False. See above.

<repetition on the same theme snipped>
Fatihah
Posts: 7,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 2:26:42 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 2:00:58 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/5/2016 11:02:15 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/5/2016 3:46:48 AM, dee-em wrote:
Fati trots out the following supposedly killer argument for the existence of God at every opportunity. I have taken the liberty of formalizing and modifying it to be less vague and loose with terminology.

P1: Any repeating pattern must be the product of an intelligence.
P2: Life (DNA) is a repeating pattern.
C: Life (DNA) must be the product of an intelligence. Therefore God.

Note that Fati words P1 differently by talking about "choice" but this is no more than saying that there has to be an intelligence at work capable of making conscious choices.

Here are a couple of the problems with this argument which is really the argument for intelligent design (the teleological argument) dressed in different garb:

1) It is quite easy to find examples of repeating patterns in nature which are not the product of an intelligence, eg. crystals (including snowflakes), the rings of Saturn, etc.. Fati will counter this by saying God set up the physics by which these repeating patterns can occur. This is a fallacy, of course, since it assumes its conclusion.

2) Ignoring that P1 has been refuted, the conclusion only tells us that a (possibly) powerful intelligence created life. There is nothing we can infer beyond that, certainly not that it requires a creator god of the universe.

More discussion of the teleological argument can be found here:
http://rationalwiki.org...

Response: Now here is my actual argument:

Hypothesis: A repeating pattern can only originate from choice.

Test subject: You.

Experiment: Draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choosing to do so (Non-choice).

Conclusion: You failed.

Thus you have firsthand evidence that a repeating pattern cannot originate from non-choice, but choice.

False. You have evidence that a human cannot create a specific pattern (a checkerboard) without choosing to do so. That tells you nothing about repeating patterns produced by non-human processes where there is no concept of choice or non-choice. Your claim only holds, if it holds at all, for intelligent entities.

For example bees create a repeating pattern of hexagons with wax when constructing beehives. However, there is no conscious choice being made by individual bees. The behaviour is instinctual. This directly refutes your hypothesis.

As such the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originated from choice, proving God's existence.

See above and refutation 2) in my OP which you have ignored.


Common atheist/agnostic rebuttal:


Atheists/Agnostics say: We do have evidence of non-choice creating repeating patterns. Crystals, snowflakes, etc..

Response: If stating that non-choice can produce a repeating pattern ...

No, that is you putting words into our mouths. We state that nature can produce a repeating pattern. Choice or non-choice does not apply to inanimate materials.

... because you have examples such as crystals, snowflakes, etc., then stating that non-choice CANNOT produce a repeating pattern is also true because we have an example of it not working (your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard without choice).

That's only true (if at all) for a humans (intelligence) as already explained. Since the examples you list are non-intelligent in nature, you are commiting a fallacy by talking about choice and non-choice where the concept cannot apply. You move the goalposts by switching from non-human examples (no concept of choice or non-choice) back to the checkerboard challenge for humans (choice comes into play). This is your logic error.

As such, the argument for non-choice fails since it contradicts.

There is no contradiction since you have been shown that you are trying to apply choice/non-choice abilities to natural phenomena where it makes no sense. You can only contrive a contradiction by hiding the fact that you are at first addressing non-intelligence then shifting back to intelligence by a sleight of hand.

Leaving the option of choice as the answer. Therefore, the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself proves originates from choice, proving God exist.

False. See above.

<repetition on the same theme snipped>

Response: Yet your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard without choice supports the fact that a repeating pattern can only originate from choice. Proving God exist.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 2:29:40 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 1:29:26 PM, Willows wrote:

Just because a checkerboard pattern can result from "choice" it does not mean that all other patterns, especially those in nature result from choice. In fact evidence says this is not so.
As for your continual assertion that God created science and nature, prove it.
It is no use saying that is common sense or logic.
In the absence of any evidence your assertion that God exists must be dismissed, that is logical and common sense.

Response: Yet your failure to provide evidence that non-choice can originate a repeating pattern while failing to produce a simple checkerboard pattern without choice supports the fact that a repeating pattern can only originate from choice. Proving God exist.
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 2:42:23 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 2:29:40 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/5/2016 1:29:26 PM, Willows wrote:

Just because a checkerboard pattern can result from "choice" it does not mean that all other patterns, especially those in nature result from choice. In fact evidence says this is not so.
As for your continual assertion that God created science and nature, prove it.
It is no use saying that is common sense or logic.
In the absence of any evidence your assertion that God exists must be dismissed, that is logical and common sense.

Response: Yet your failure to provide evidence that non-choice can originate a repeating pattern while failing to produce a simple checkerboard pattern without choice supports the fact that a repeating pattern can only originate from choice. Proving God exist.

Your sense of logic is so screwed its not even funny.
A is not B therefore it must be C.
And if its not C then God.
And whatever can't be proven then God.
bulproof
Posts: 25,272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 2:51:19 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
The god of chessboards has spoken.
And he said Fats is a fckwit.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Fatihah
Posts: 7,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 2:54:06 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 2:42:23 PM, Willows wrote:


Your sense of logic is so screwed its not even funny.
A is not B therefore it must be C.
And if its not C then God.
And whatever can't be proven then God.

Response: To the contrary, your deluded rebuttals are actually funny.

A has no logical evidence
B has logical evidence

Therefore, A is wrong and B is right.
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 12:16:11 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 2:26:42 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/5/2016 2:00:58 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/5/2016 11:02:15 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/5/2016 3:46:48 AM, dee-em wrote:
Fati trots out the following supposedly killer argument for the existence of God at every opportunity. I have taken the liberty of formalizing and modifying it to be less vague and loose with terminology.

P1: Any repeating pattern must be the product of an intelligence.
P2: Life (DNA) is a repeating pattern.
C: Life (DNA) must be the product of an intelligence. Therefore God.

Note that Fati words P1 differently by talking about "choice" but this is no more than saying that there has to be an intelligence at work capable of making conscious choices.

Here are a couple of the problems with this argument which is really the argument for intelligent design (the teleological argument) dressed in different garb:

1) It is quite easy to find examples of repeating patterns in nature which are not the product of an intelligence, eg. crystals (including snowflakes), the rings of Saturn, etc.. Fati will counter this by saying God set up the physics by which these repeating patterns can occur. This is a fallacy, of course, since it assumes its conclusion.

2) Ignoring that P1 has been refuted, the conclusion only tells us that a (possibly) powerful intelligence created life. There is nothing we can infer beyond that, certainly not that it requires a creator god of the universe.

More discussion of the teleological argument can be found here:
http://rationalwiki.org...

Response: Now here is my actual argument:

Hypothesis: A repeating pattern can only originate from choice.

Test subject: You.

Experiment: Draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choosing to do so (Non-choice).

Conclusion: You failed.

Thus you have firsthand evidence that a repeating pattern cannot originate from non-choice, but choice.

False. You have evidence that a human cannot create a specific pattern (a checkerboard) without choosing to do so. That tells you nothing about repeating patterns produced by non-human processes where there is no concept of choice or non-choice. Your claim only holds, if it holds at all, for intelligent entities.

For example bees create a repeating pattern of hexagons with wax when constructing beehives. However, there is no conscious choice being made by individual bees. The behaviour is instinctual. This directly refutes your hypothesis.

As such the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originated from choice, proving God's existence.

See above and refutation 2) in my OP which you have ignored.


Common atheist/agnostic rebuttal:


Atheists/Agnostics say: We do have evidence of non-choice creating repeating patterns. Crystals, snowflakes, etc..

Response: If stating that non-choice can produce a repeating pattern ...

No, that is you putting words into our mouths. We state that nature can produce a repeating pattern. Choice or non-choice does not apply to inanimate materials.

... because you have examples such as crystals, snowflakes, etc., then stating that non-choice CANNOT produce a repeating pattern is also true because we have an example of it not working (your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard without choice).

That's only true (if at all) for a humans (intelligence) as already explained. Since the examples you list are non-intelligent in nature, you are commiting a fallacy by talking about choice and non-choice where the concept cannot apply. You move the goalposts by switching from non-human examples (no concept of choice or non-choice) back to the checkerboard challenge for humans (choice comes into play). This is your logic error.

As such, the argument for non-choice fails since it contradicts.

There is no contradiction since you have been shown that you are trying to apply choice/non-choice abilities to natural phenomena where it makes no sense. You can only contrive a contradiction by hiding the fact that you are at first addressing non-intelligence then shifting back to intelligence by a sleight of hand.

Leaving the option of choice as the answer. Therefore, the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself proves originates from choice, proving God exist.

False. See above.

<repetition on the same theme snipped>

Response: Yet your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard without choice supports the fact that a repeating pattern can only originate from choice. Proving God exist.

Yep, true to form you ignore all objections and merely reiterate your failed claim. I'll take this as you having conceded. Carry on.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 12:22:39 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 11:39:04 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/5/2016 11:34:41 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

False conclusions. Choice can fail to make a pattern, too, without choosing to do so. That is to say one can attempt to make a checkerboard pattern and fail.

I can come up with examples in which a repeating pattern is chosen, but is failed to be made. Sorry, Fatiah, this conditional fails as well.


Response: Yet your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choice supports the fact that a repeating pattern can only originate from choice. Proving God exist.

A snowflake originates without choice disproving your claim.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 1:26:55 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 11:02:15 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/5/2016 3:46:48 AM, dee-em wrote:
Fati trots out the following supposedly killer argument for the existence of God at every opportunity. I have taken the liberty of formalizing and modifying it to be less vague and loose with terminology.

P1: Any repeating pattern must be the product of an intelligence.
P2: Life (DNA) is a repeating pattern.
C: Life (DNA) must be the product of an intelligence. Therefore God.

Note that Fati words P1 differently by talking about "choice" but this is no more than saying that there has to be an intelligence at work capable of making conscious choices.

Here are a couple of the problems with this argument which is really the argument for intelligent design (the teleological argument) dressed in different garb:

1) It is quite easy to find examples of repeating patterns in nature which are not the product of an intelligence, eg. crystals (including snowflakes), the rings of Saturn, etc.. Fati will counter this by saying God set up the physics by which these repeating patterns can occur. This is a fallacy, of course, since it assumes its conclusion.

2) Ignoring that P1 has been refuted, the conclusion only tells us that a (possibly) powerful intelligence created life. There is nothing we can infer beyond that, certainly not that it requires a creator god of the universe.

More discussion of the teleological argument can be found here:
http://rationalwiki.org...

Response: Now here is my actual argument:

Hypothesis: A repeating pattern can only originate from choice.

Test subject: You.

Experiment: Draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choosing to do so (Non-choice).

Conclusion: You failed.

Thus you have firsthand evidence that a repeating pattern cannot originate from non-choice, but choice. As such the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originated from choice, proving God's existence.

Common atheist/agnostic rebuttal:


Atheists/Agnostics say: We do have evidence of non-choice creating repeating patterns. Crystals, snowflakes, etc..

Response: If stating that non-choice can produce a repeating pattern because you have examples such as crystals, snowflakes, etc., then stating that non-choice CANNOT produce a repeating pattern is also true because we have an example of it not working (your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard without choice). As such, the argument for non-choice fails since it contradicts. Leaving the option of choice as the answer. Therefore, the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself proves originates from choice, proving God exist.

For it is not that the examples work and do not work, what makes it a contradiction is that THEY OPPOSE each other. Meaning the reasoning you use to favor your argument, also goes against it. You are claiming something is true, and THE REASON is because you have examples. Yet one can say that your argument is untrue. Why? Because we have examples. Notice, the very argument you are using goes against you. THAT IS WHY IT IS A CONTRADICTION. So non-choice fails as evidence, because the reason you use to favor it (because you have examples) also goes against you (there are examples). Thus the evidence is clear that a repeating pattern can only originate from choice, proving that the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originate from choice. Proving the existence of God.

You claim that your proof that non-choice created the pattern is because you did not see choice. Yet if you found an IPhone in the sand or on the street, and we ask was this IPhone created by choice or without choice, you would all say "someone chose to make it, despite not seeing choice. A blatant contradiction. Showing once again that non-choice is false since it is based on a contradiction, leaving choice as the option and proving God exist.

We know why complexity is created from chaos in nature (crystals, etc). Its called self organization theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Self organization is fueled by entropy. Its explained in the link. You're welcome ;)
Fatihah
Posts: 7,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 1:40:30 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 12:16:11 AM, dee-em wrote:

Yep, true to form you ignore all objections and merely reiterate your failed claim. I'll take this as you having conceded. Carry on.

Response: As usual, you think an objection is an answer to the fact that you failed the challenge. Doesn't work that way. You were issued a challenge. You failed the challenge. Saying "I object" doesn't change that you failed.

So as usual, your own failure supports that God exist. Thanks for the assistance.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 1:44:32 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 12:22:39 AM, Chloe8 wrote:

A snowflake originates without choice disproving your claim.

Response: Yet your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choice proves that a repeating pattern can only originate from choice. Thus God exist.

Debunked by your own failure.