Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God

[OPTIONAL777]

I don't believe you actually read what I said.

Flat earthers used only naked empiricism, which is insufficient on its own, I have mentioned that problem before when the sun revolving around the earth was believed to be fact.

Design is not creationism from my perspective, I have addressed that previously.

Creationism is mostly a product of Christianity or Christians and their world/God view.

I am not a Christian, so that is not my view.

The driving force of much of the atheistic movement is fed by anger with the Christian religion. It is west-centric. You make the mistake of lumping all design arguments into the category of Christian design arguments, implying "Sky fairy daddy" or "magic creator" or some other reactionary emotionally driven response.

You are not actually able to address the issues I am raising, because I am not trying to prove design to anyone at all. The fact that things look designed is insufficient to claim design necessarily.
My argument is that non design has no basis in actual fact.

Now, if we apply that type of "logical" thinking to non design, a reasonable person would have to conclude that because things look random and by chance that means they actually are random and chance and that is a leap of faith to hold that as a first proposition.

You are jem are doing the same thing. jem is making the argument that things look designed, therefore they are...but not offering any proof.

You are making the argument that things look random and chance consequence, therefore they are...but not offering any independent proof...because science has not actually proved causation is random nor chance.

Neither design nor non design have a proof.

So there is no valid reason to assume one over the other.

If I take you and jem as polar opposites, what I see is extremism on both sides. You both get emotional, you both become self righteous, and neither side questions their position, because both sides are making declarations they claim to "know" but do not when cornered will claim not to have "claimed."

Every single biological process, including the environmental impact on biological organisms, and the nature of biological organisms, i.e. to survive, to change can be taught to children in schools...without any theory of design or non design.

The child can ask, is the change by design or non design?

The correct answer is, "We don't know. There have been many different ideas as to the why's, but we have no way to actually know at this point."

You believe in non design. jem believes in design. You say jem quotes out of context, which indicates that you believe you have the proper context. jem believes he has the proper context. Neither can prove their position or what is the proper context. Both are making a first assumption without proof.

I happen to think design is a better first proposition, but I am not saying I know that, or that it is a fact. It is just a first proposition that doesn't change any fact of science, or support it. There are no odds that design is right and that non design is wrong. It is unknown.

My goal would be to return science to a truly scientific realm, where theories that crumble when boiling them down are not propagated as truths, and where opinions are classified accordingly as just opinions.

If a child is taught the history of science properly, the child begins to understand that ideas change radically in science, and for someone to build their entire world view and meaning of life based on some opinions of science, they are really no different than someone who practices any other religion (including the religion of atheism), or subscribes to scientific dogma, etc.

Quote from stu:

I've heard the same argument from flat earthers .
They just look at the near horizon and say no one can prove there is non flat earth.

 

[jem]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

I don't believe you actually read what I said.

Flat earthers used only naked empiricism, which is insufficient on its own, I have mentioned that problem before when the sun revolving around the earth was believed to be fact.

Design is not creationism from my perspective, I have addressed that previously.

Creationism is mostly a product of Christianity or Christians and their world/God view.

I am not a Christian, so that is not my view.

The driving force of much of the atheistic movement is fed by anger with the Christian religion. It is west-centric. You make the mistake of lumping all design arguments into the category of Christian design arguments, implying "Sky fairy daddy" or "magic creator" or some other reactionary emotionally driven response.

You are not actually able to address the issues I am raising, because I am not trying to prove design to anyone at all. The fact that things look design is insufficient to claim design.

Now, if we apply that type of logical thinking to non design, a reasonable person would have to conclude that because things look random and by chance that means they actually are random and chance and that is a leap of faith to hold that as a first proposition.

Neither design nor non design have a proof.

So there is no valid reason to assume one over the other.

If I take you and jem as polar opposites, what I see is extremism on both sides. You both get emotional, you both become self righteous, and neither side questions their position, because both sides are making declarations they claim to "know" but do not when cornered will claim not to have "claimed."

Every single biological process, including the environmental impact on biological organisms, and the nature of biological organisms, i.e. to survive, to change can be taught to children in schools...without any theory of design or non design.

The child can ask, is the change by design or non design?

The correct answer is, "We don't know. There have been many different ideas as to the why's, but we have no way to actually know at this point."

You believe in non design. jem believes in design. You say jem quotes out of context, which indicates that you believe you have the proper context. jem believes he has the proper context. Neither can prove their position or what is the proper context. Both are making a first assumption without proof.

I happen to think design is a better first proposition, but I am not saying I know that, or that it is a fact. It is just a first proposition that doesn't change any fact of science, or support it. There are no odds that design is right and that non design is wrong. It is unknown.

My goal would be to return science to a truly scientific realm, where theories that crumble when boiling them down are not propagated as truths, and where opinions are classified accordingly as just opinions.

If a child is taught the history of science properly, the child begins to understand that ideas change radically in science, and for someone to build their entire world view and meaning of life based on some opinions of science, they are really no different than someone who practices any other religion (including the religion of atheism), or subscribes to scientific dogma, etc.

your inability to distinguish between Stus thoughts and nobel prize winners thoughts is the reason the arguments seem equal.

someone could say 2 plus 2 equal 4 and one 5. and by your current methodology they would both only be opinion because you remain ignorant of their math.

Your flee from ignorance should begin by giving the proper weight to Stus evidence and the Noble prize winners evidence and then learning something.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Hoisting up opinions of Nobel prize winners is not an expression of an informed and educated opinion. It is no different than someone who quotes from the Bible.

You are not capable of doing a peer review of Nobel prize winner in science, simply because you could not duplicate their work on your own.

So you pick some experts (I am not denying Nobel prize winners are experts) and the other side picks other Nobel prize winning experts who have different opinions.

Your approach to this is like a lawyer trying to win a case.

Stu's approach is to claim he knows and then claims he doesn't declare it.

My approach is simply to destroy the fundamentals of the argument of non design, which completely falls apart if you can show that the concept of non design is based in ignorance...not in fact or actual evidence. It hinges on the concept of random, and chance. Since evolutionary biologists cannot predict if, and when, or how, or at all when such random chance things happen...the first proposition lack falsifiability. There is no actual math to random and chance mutations that would convince any strictly reasoned listener from believing random chance is more probable than design. There is equal probability, because neither is known or knowable at this juncture.

What have the evolutionary biologists actually done? They have examined biological organisms and have been able to describe their nature. Not a big deal really, it is obvious what is the nature of biological organisms. They are born, they live, then they die. They try to survive. They require external sources of energy. They change constantly, but maintain their integrity as a species in spite of internal and external changes.

Okay. That's an accepted given.

Then they concoct a theory based on random chance changes by the magical mystery power of what? Well, they don't know, it is a guess, but they don't want to guess God, because either they don't believe in God, or their concept of God is from early Bible class and the Old Testament...which they reject...so it must be some magic force of random chance. Yes, that's it. What a great idea. They know that they can't be proved wrong, and they also know that most people are not smart enough to figure it out...that they can't actually prove they are right. If random chance is assumed, then if evolution never happens in the future, they are not wrong because they can say "it is going to happen, it happened in the past, it will happen in the future." We can't go back to confirm causes of the changes in the past, so they can't be proved wrong.

It is a rather neat argument, but logically false. Most people don't think, they just follow. They put up the "expert opinions" and follow them blindly...without having done it for themselves.

That's what you are doing, that is what stu is doing.

Quote from jem:

if you had no background on the subject and a non political obama gave support for his opinion and the goober did not what would an intelligent person do? He might initially discount the goober and begin research with Obama's work. In the end he would form an educated opinion.

I hoisted up multiple nobel prize winners opinions to show that you are purposefully ignorant when you say there is no evidence of design. I did not say you have to agree with their conclusions.

 

[jem]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Hoisting up opinions of Nobel prize winners is not an expression of an informed and educated opinion. It is no different than someone who quotes from the Bible.

You are not capable of doing a peer review of Nobel prize winner in science, simply because you could not duplicate their work on your own.

So you pick some experts (I am not denying Nobel prize winners are experts) and the other side picks other Nobel prize winning experts who have different opinions.

Your approach to this is like a lawyer trying to win a case.

Stu's approach is to claim he knows and then claims he doesn't declare it.

My approach is simply to destroy the fundamentals of the argument of non design, which completely falls apart if you can show that the concept of non design is based in ignorance...not in fact or actual evidence. It hinges on the concept of random, and chance. Since evolutionary biologists cannot predict if, and when, or how, or at all when such random chance things happen...the first proposition lack falsifiability. There is no actual math to random and chance mutations that would convince any strictly reasoned listener from believing random chance is more probable than design. There is equal probability, because neither is known or knowable at this juncture.

What have the evolutionary biologists actually done? They have examined biological organisms and have been able to describe their nature. Not a big deal really, it is obvious what is the nature of biological organisms. They are born, they live, then they die. They try to survive. They require external sources of energy. They change constantly, but maintain their integrity as a species in spite of internal and external changes.

Okay. That's an accepted given.

Then they concoct a theory based on random chance changes by the magical mystery power of what? Well, they don't know, it is a guess, but they don't want to guess God, because either they don't believe in God, or their concept of God is from early Bible class and the Old Testament...which they reject...so it must be some magic force of random chance. Yes, that's it. What a great idea. They know that they can't be proved wrong, and they also know that most people are not smart enough to figure it out...that they can't actually prove they are right. If random chance is assumed, then if evolution never happens in the future, they are not wrong because they can say "it is going to happen, it happened in the past, it will happen in the future." We can't go back to confirm causes of the changes in the past, so they can't be proved wrong.

It is a rather neat argument, but logically false. Most people don't think, they just follow. They put up the "expert opinions" and follow them blindly...without having done it for themselves.

That's what you are doing, that is what stu is doing.

its odd that you think I am doing anything. I am not trying to prove design... I am just trying to get you and Stu to understand that it is ignorant to say there is no evidence of design.

I am just telling you that Nobel prize winners have enough evidence to say things like there is no chance certain events happened by chance.

I think its boldly ignorant to suggest they have no evidence to make those statements. Especially when the statements sometimes come from professed atheists.

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Hoisting up opinions of Nobel prize winners is not an expression of an informed and educated opinion.

i think the word your looking for is "foisting" up opinion

 

[jem]

Quote from killthesunshine:

i think the word your looking for is "foisting" up opinion

oh look its stus favorite sock puppet. injecting some stu humor.
which while funny in a weasely kind of way is clearly out of character for tweedle dee.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Either you are doing something, or nothing, or both.

You are posting quotes, but it is for a purpose, right?

Evidence is not the problem. Evidence, true evidence leads everyone to the same conclusion.

Opinions are a different matter.

In cosmology they begin with limited data, and make guesses and grand theories. Just opinions which are invalidated by more information, and the process will continue along those lines until we have all the information...which is not possible since we can't go back to a time before the universe.

There is no evidence of design beyond "it appears designed" and no evidence of non design beyond "we can't see a pattern or cause...so it must be random and chance."

Both positions are entirely flawed, and quite similar actually in their flaws.

If you show the flaws of an argument, it doesn't mean a counter argument is not equally flawed...but it does make you return back to the condition of "I don't know."

Quote from jem:

its odd that you think I am doing anything. I am not trying to prove design... I am just trying to get you and Stu to understand that it is ignorant to say there is no evidence of design.

I am just telling you that Nobel prize winners have enough evidence to say things like there is no chance certain events happened by chance.

I think its boldly ignorant to suggest they have no evidence to make those statements. Especially when the statements sometimes come from professed atheists.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

I am not looking for any word, I was just replicating the word that jem used.

Do you actually have anything to contribute to the discussion?

Quote from killthesunshine:

i think the word your looking for is "foisting" up opinion

 

[killthesunshine]

If your going to make a claim, then it behooves YOU to supply evidence for said claim.

If, lacking this, you wish not to make a claim at all but assert the possibility, then you must have a good REASON for suggesting said possibility.

Models should not be allowed to multiply indiscriminately w/o real necessity or purpose.

Is it possible that there are men living on the moon? Is it reasonable to suggest that that's a possibility?

See what I mean?

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

I am not looking for any word, I was just replicating the word that jem used.

Do you actually have anything to contribute to the discussion?

OH Now i see why jem was pissed it was she that missed the correct word for context