Post Number:#181 
April 23rd, 2012, 8:15 am
Fanman wrote,
“I tend to agree that chance is not a thing which is capable of creating something from noting. I think that once something has been created, chance can then act upon what has been created; be it physical or metaphysical in nature i.e. - a chance sequence of events in our creation and make-up, could be the reason that we humans use reason, logic, conscience and imagination to perceive and interpret the world around us? The same or similar chance sequence of events, could also be the reason for our physical appearance and attributes or the reason why the sun is the exact distance away from the earth to support life. However, that said, we still have an ontological unidentified source / cause which is responsible for creation / existence, which provides chance with an opportunity to act and flourish as the atheist would believe it has.”
Well, you still gain no philosophical points here by merely recognizing the obvious: “there’s no identifiable source for the cause of all things, therefore theism wins by default,” is as poor an argument as one could imagine. Again, you’re confusing issues around causal ontology with ‘how’ we exist—these are not explicitly related or even clearly relatable in the way you seem to think. I may, for example, hold that the universe occurred wholly by chance (“chance” here meaning something like some arbitrary and unpredictable force or set of processes)-but is now well designed and structurally organized. There’s nothing prima facie contradictory about these propositional relations. Likewise, one could reasonably hold that the universe began by a determined force or set of processes and yet is ‘now’ at the fundamental physical level operating in accordance with the view of chance just outlined here. In either case, one has to argue for the merits of either position. The mere absence or even known presence of the original cause may have nothing to do with our current state of ontological affairs. It is vital that you see this important distinction between these metaphysical domains of the discussion.
Fanman wrote,
“Yes, I do believe that God created the universe. Physically, my belief is based on the notion that the universe demonstrates conceptual design i.e. - the concept of our solar system is to support life, the concept of male and female species is to reproduce, the concept of speech is to communicate and so on... I believe that intelligence is required to create concepts, and that there are too many complex and intricate concepts which make-up existence - to believe that existence is not the work of intelligence, genius in fact. I believe that God is omnipotent, and therefore has the ability to create both physical and spiritual forms and matter.”
I understand what you believe Fanman-but that isn’t the point. You don’t really provide any cogent explanation or justification for these beliefs other than this is the way it seems to you,i.e., which is an argument from incredulity: I cannot understand how things could be explained differently-therefore, they can’t be any other way. This is easily refuted by one seeing the opposite: that the universe is quite evidently violent against life-male and females in many species may reproduce but not always-and simple reproduction (sex between two opposite sexual members) isn’t the only way species ‘encourage reproduction.’ Others do not see that our complex conceptual thinking minds are always or even a clear advantage over the survival of other species—in fact microbials seem to be the supreme survivors, even our bodies possess more microbials than we have cells. It isn’t clear how having such large brains that are metabolically expensive-exacting huge survival costs on our parents and ourselves is evidence of intelligent design. From the standpoint of this perceiving subject-your reasons are just as easily refuted as they are held. Again, we need good arguments not personal perceptions to assist us in our truth finding projects.
Fanman wrote,
“Experientially, my belief is based upon my experiences of certain scriptures of the bible being fulfilled in my life and other people's lives. And how I have experienced the enhancing affect of Christianity, from study of the bible. I understand that we have been around the mulberry bush on the validity of my personal experience, but we may have to go around once more. Spiritually, I believe that I have been enlightened by learning about God through study of the bible. I also believe that it is God's choice to remain mysterious (that is beyond the reach of science) until the time comes when he is ready to reveal himself and, that faith works as a kind of 'test' for us, to gauge whether we're worthy of the rewards that can be gained from believing in God; without ever having scientific evidence to base our belief in him on.”
Again, this argument has been thoroughly debunked: if this justification structure is ‘valid’ for you, then how does it-or you- deal with the ‘diversity problem’ I analyzed and propounded elsewhere? Pretending that-that argument doesn’t exist after several posts have passed-doesn’t make the pretending somehow so!
Eric D.
“I tend to agree that chance is not a thing which is capable of creating something from noting. I think that once something has been created, chance can then act upon what has been created; be it physical or metaphysical in nature i.e. - a chance sequence of events in our creation and make-up, could be the reason that we humans use reason, logic, conscience and imagination to perceive and interpret the world around us? The same or similar chance sequence of events, could also be the reason for our physical appearance and attributes or the reason why the sun is the exact distance away from the earth to support life. However, that said, we still have an ontological unidentified source / cause which is responsible for creation / existence, which provides chance with an opportunity to act and flourish as the atheist would believe it has.”
Well, you still gain no philosophical points here by merely recognizing the obvious: “there’s no identifiable source for the cause of all things, therefore theism wins by default,” is as poor an argument as one could imagine. Again, you’re confusing issues around causal ontology with ‘how’ we exist—these are not explicitly related or even clearly relatable in the way you seem to think. I may, for example, hold that the universe occurred wholly by chance (“chance” here meaning something like some arbitrary and unpredictable force or set of processes)-but is now well designed and structurally organized. There’s nothing prima facie contradictory about these propositional relations. Likewise, one could reasonably hold that the universe began by a determined force or set of processes and yet is ‘now’ at the fundamental physical level operating in accordance with the view of chance just outlined here. In either case, one has to argue for the merits of either position. The mere absence or even known presence of the original cause may have nothing to do with our current state of ontological affairs. It is vital that you see this important distinction between these metaphysical domains of the discussion.
Fanman wrote,
“Yes, I do believe that God created the universe. Physically, my belief is based on the notion that the universe demonstrates conceptual design i.e. - the concept of our solar system is to support life, the concept of male and female species is to reproduce, the concept of speech is to communicate and so on... I believe that intelligence is required to create concepts, and that there are too many complex and intricate concepts which make-up existence - to believe that existence is not the work of intelligence, genius in fact. I believe that God is omnipotent, and therefore has the ability to create both physical and spiritual forms and matter.”
I understand what you believe Fanman-but that isn’t the point. You don’t really provide any cogent explanation or justification for these beliefs other than this is the way it seems to you,i.e., which is an argument from incredulity: I cannot understand how things could be explained differently-therefore, they can’t be any other way. This is easily refuted by one seeing the opposite: that the universe is quite evidently violent against life-male and females in many species may reproduce but not always-and simple reproduction (sex between two opposite sexual members) isn’t the only way species ‘encourage reproduction.’ Others do not see that our complex conceptual thinking minds are always or even a clear advantage over the survival of other species—in fact microbials seem to be the supreme survivors, even our bodies possess more microbials than we have cells. It isn’t clear how having such large brains that are metabolically expensive-exacting huge survival costs on our parents and ourselves is evidence of intelligent design. From the standpoint of this perceiving subject-your reasons are just as easily refuted as they are held. Again, we need good arguments not personal perceptions to assist us in our truth finding projects.
Fanman wrote,
“Experientially, my belief is based upon my experiences of certain scriptures of the bible being fulfilled in my life and other people's lives. And how I have experienced the enhancing affect of Christianity, from study of the bible. I understand that we have been around the mulberry bush on the validity of my personal experience, but we may have to go around once more. Spiritually, I believe that I have been enlightened by learning about God through study of the bible. I also believe that it is God's choice to remain mysterious (that is beyond the reach of science) until the time comes when he is ready to reveal himself and, that faith works as a kind of 'test' for us, to gauge whether we're worthy of the rewards that can be gained from believing in God; without ever having scientific evidence to base our belief in him on.”
Again, this argument has been thoroughly debunked: if this justification structure is ‘valid’ for you, then how does it-or you- deal with the ‘diversity problem’ I analyzed and propounded elsewhere? Pretending that-that argument doesn’t exist after several posts have passed-doesn’t make the pretending somehow so!
Eric D.