Gary's Corner

[Gary Childress]

Well, of course, the word "somehow" isn't actually an explanation of anything.

Of course...

Gary, you've been rude, insulting and vile toward the God I love. I know you're mentally ill and unbalanced, you've said so yourself: but I have limits. And now, I'm done with talking to you, until you sort out your issues with God.

God help you. You're going to need it. And I mean that sincerely.

Help yourself. You'll need it. I feel morally fine.

[MikeNovack]

So, unless you've got something else in mind, we will have to conclude that there are, to our knowledge, no examples at all of order arising spontaneously from chaos by way of randomness. And yet that is the very explanation Atheism's sponsoring worldviews ask us to accept -- that contrary to any examples at all, randomness somehow generated order, and order of a very high level of complexity and interrelatedness.

It would take a great deal of faith to accept such an explanation, I think you'd have to agree.

The Tyger fits so perfectly in the forests of the night.

Do you consider that "order"? A rightness of fitness to purpose that could not have a "random" origin? Note, this is not randomness in a background of chaos. The forest is defined, also a range of environments continuous from where the species fits now, and a function of differential survival to reproduction depending on closeness to fit with this continuum of environments leading to forest.

The ecosphere has a very high level of complexity and interrelatedness. It does not require a great deal of faith for me to accept that ALL we need if to start with LIFE, things things that reproduce themselves with random imprecision, and the rest will follow,

[Immanuel Can]

So, unless you've got something else in mind, we will have to conclude that there are, to our knowledge, no examples at all of order arising spontaneously from chaos by way of randomness. And yet that is the very explanation Atheism's sponsoring worldviews ask us to accept -- that contrary to any examples at all, randomness somehow generated order, and order of a very high level of complexity and interrelatedness.

It would take a great deal of faith to accept such an explanation, I think you'd have to agree.

The Tyger fits so perfectly in the forests of the night.

Well, to be fair, Blake was a Swedenborgian, and a first rate lunatic. Brilliant man, crazy as a box of bedbugs. A bit of a nudist, too, I understand. And he claimed to see angels in his trees.

I admire his poetry. I don't look to him for descriptions of the naturalistic world.

The ecosphere has a very high level of complexity and interrelatedness.

Very. And this is precisely the point: such complexity and interrelatedness cannot reasonably be explained in terms of randomness. There are no examples of it.

[phyllo]

The fact that order exists in the universe means it arose 'somehow' ... either directly or first forming a god who then created the universe as we know it.

Well, of course, the word "somehow" isn't actually an explanation of anything. It's an empty, undefined placeholder for "I don't know."

The word "God" isn't an explanation of anything either. It's also a placeholder.

However, if, as Christians and Jews believe, God is eternal, that's not possible, of course. God can't be used as an example of order from randomness, because that view of God is that He is self-existent, and doesn't have a beginning.

Making God "eternal", "self-existent", "without beginning" are just ways to avoid the problem ... ways not to have to explain. While also demanding explanations from atheists.

But if you don't believe in God, that's a moot point anyway. Let's go on, then.

What I believe is irrelevant to the points I raise.

[Immanuel Can]

The fact that order exists in the universe means it arose 'somehow' ... either directly or first forming a god who then created the universe as we know it.

Well, of course, the word "somehow" isn't actually an explanation of anything. It's an empty, undefined placeholder for "I don't know."

The word "God" isn't an explanation of anything either. It's also a placeholder.

That's the present matter of discussion: does a real God exist? It's not something that I'm inclined to agree with you about, so you'll need to prove your case about that.

Do you have one?

However, if, as Christians and Jews believe, God is eternal, that's not possible, of course. God can't be used as an example of order from randomness, because that view of God is that He is self-existent, and doesn't have a beginning.

Making God "eternal", "self-existent", "without beginning" are just ways to avoid the problem ... ways not to have to explain.

No, that's not the case, and there's very conclusive evidence that it's not. I'm happy to supply it.

Because of the infinite regress problem, both Christians and Atheists know for certain that there would necessarily be a First Cause...something eternal, highly powerful, and capable of producing immense complexity and delivering physical laws to govern it. That's actually not a matter of debate, but of science and mathematics. So we both know it, or should know it.

The only question is, is that more likely to be God, or to be something else? But it certainly can't be mere randomness, which would surely be an inadequate posited cause for the effect it is supposed to have achieved. Randomness doesn't make things, and particularly, not highly complex, interrlated things, which we have both recognized is a proper description of the universe and of life.

While also demanding explanations from atheists.

Of course. If Atheists can ask Theists to defend their faith, why can't Theists ask Atheists to justify their denial of God's existence? It seems perfectly fair.

But if you don't believe in God, that's a moot point anyway. Let's go on, then.

What I believe is irrelevant to the points I raise.

I'm not sure it is. After all, you seem to expect people to agree with you that there's no God, or at least to accept your questions as justifiable. For example, you make the claim at the beginning that the word "God" is merely a placeholder. You seem confident, then, that there's no Entity for the word "God" to refer to. And yet, you have offered neither evidence nor reasons for that assumption. So something is behind your questions, and it seems to be an assumption that Atheism is default right, and without any evidence or reasons.

I see no reason to grant that, since you're expecting evidence and reasons from Theists, right? Shouldn't you be willing to do as much as you're demanding of them?

[Impenitent]

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

yet evidence of abscess is a conundrum for dentists...

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

yet evidence of abscess is a conundrum for dentists...

-Imp

He might have to obsess over the abscess.

[Impenitent]

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

yet evidence of abscess is a conundrum for dentists...

-Imp

He might have to obsess over the abscess.

at least until recess

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

yet evidence of abscess is a conundrum for dentists...

-Imp

He might have to obsess over the abscess.

at least until recess

-Imp

That's when your dentist fixes your abscess for the second time.

[phyllo]

That's the present matter of discussion: does a real God exist? It's not something that I'm inclined to agree with you about, so you'll need to prove your case about that.

No, the current discussion is how can you get order out of nothing or out of randomness.

Attributing the order of the universe to God just moves the question to how did an ordered God got here.

Because of the infinite regress problem, both Christians and Atheists know for certain that there would necessarily be a First Cause...something eternal, highly powerful, and capable of producing immense complexity and delivering physical laws to govern it. That's actually not a matter of debate, but of science and mathematics. So we both know it, or should know it.

The straight fact is that nobody understands how or why an ordered universe exists. Science and mathematics is currently unable to account for it.

Talk about first cause is just avoiding saying "We don't know".

Of course. If Atheists can ask Theists to defend their faith, why can't Theists ask Atheists to justify their denial of God's existence? It seems perfectly fair.

Atheists repeatedly say that they see no evidence of God. Lack of evidence is sufficient justification.

'm not sure it is. After all, you seem to expect people to agree with you that there's no God, or at least to accept your questions as justifiable. For example, you make the claim at the beginning that the word "God" is merely a placeholder. You seem confident, then, that there's no Entity for the word "God" to refer to. And yet, you have offered neither evidence nor reasons for that assumption. So something is behind your questions, and it seems to be an assumption that Atheism is default right, and without any evidence or reasons.

Let's say that there is a God. You have no explanation of why or how a God exits (why or how there is order in the form of God).

But you keep demanding that atheists produce the why and how of the order of the universe.

[Immanuel Can]

That's the present matter of discussion: does a real God exist? It's not something that I'm inclined to agree with you about, so you'll need to prove your case about that.

No, the current discussion is how can you get order out of nothing or out of randomness.

Well, the non-existence of God is not something that people are just going to assume for you, so you'll need to offer some reasons or evidence, not just claim it and leave it there.

Attributing the order of the universe to God just moves the question to how did an ordered God got here.

It doesn't, actually. No Christians or Jews believe in a created God. They believe in the eternal God, the Supreme Being, and the First Cause of all things. So you can argue with them about the existence of such, but if you say, "How did God get here?" you're asking a question that for them, is simple nonsense: it's not something they believe in, so they have no need to defend that idea. It's faulty in conception.

Because of the infinite regress problem, both Christians and Atheists know for certain that there would necessarily be a First Cause...something eternal, highly powerful, and capable of producing immense complexity and delivering physical laws to govern it. That's actually not a matter of debate, but of science and mathematics. So we both know it, or should know it.

The straight fact is that nobody understands how or why an ordered universe exists.

"How?" Well, there are various theories, of course...among them, Evolutionism and Creationism. And if one of those is right, then it won't turn out to be true that nobody knows.

But you missed the point. Both Atheists and Creationists have access to the mathematical and scientific demonstration of the necessity of some First Cause of the sort I described in my last message. And mathematics is just as certain for Atheists as for Creationists. So no reasonable person can actually doubt that.

It's what the uncaused First Cause might be that is the matter of debate. Not its necessity.

Of course. If Atheists can ask Theists to defend their faith, why can't Theists ask Atheists to justify their denial of God's existence? It seems perfectly fair.

Atheists repeatedly say that they see no evidence of God. Lack of evidence is sufficient justification.

It's not, actually. A "lack of evidence" is no more than a confession of ignorance, and only personal ignorance, at that. There's no deduction from, "An Atheist doesn't know God," to "so you can't know God."

All the Atheist is actually saying (if he's honest about that) is, "I don't personally see any evidence for God," or "I don't know God." To which the Theist simply responds, "Yes, I know you don't know God: that's why you've been an Atheist, I must suppose. But I do know God, and I can point to the evidence for His existence."

Bottom line: that's a pretty lame response on the part of the Atheist, and doesn't amount to anything threatening to Theism. It doesn't even demand a refutation. It can be agreed upon: Atheists are people who don't know God. Makes sense.

I'm not sure it is. After all, you seem to expect people to agree with you that there's no God, or at least to accept your questions as justifiable. For example, you make the claim at the beginning that the word "God" is merely a placeholder. You seem confident, then, that there's no Entity for the word "God" to refer to. And yet, you have offered neither evidence nor reasons for that assumption. So something is behind your questions, and it seems to be an assumption that Atheism is default right, and without any evidence or reasons.

Let's say that there is a God. You have no explanation of why or how a God exits (why or how there is order in the form of God).

You said "exits" again.

I do know God. And I do have explanations (although "Why does an eternal being exist," which is what you ask above, is actually a nonsense question, since it supposes a prior cause for the First Cause.). The Theist is not shy about offering them. Why is the Atheist so inept at providing evidence or reasons?

And if you insist that neither has reasons, then how does that help us toward deciding that Atheism is better than Theism? It doesn't, obviously.

[Gary Childress]

Maybe we can pray to God for a bolt of lightning to strike a podium in front of Trump to put the fear of God in him before he makes the current situation even worse? Just stunning him, not harming him.

If that happens, IC then I'll accept that the only likely explanation is that God exists. If it doesn't happen, then I'm remaining Agnostic.

Trump having a near death experience of any kind at his age is a relatively high probability event, however. If a bolt of lightning specifically near misses Trump, now, after I said what I said, the chances of that happening are astronomically slim. So I'll accept it as being best explainable as an act of God and will, on top of that, retract every rude thing I've ever said to you.

If it doesn't happen then worst case, I'm still agnostic. Sound good to you?

[phyllo]

Attributing the order of the universe to God just moves the question to how did an ordered God got here.

It doesn't, actually. No Christians or Jews believe in a created God. They believe in the eternal God, the Supreme Being, and the First Cause of all things. So you can argue with them about the existence of such, but if you say, "How did God get here?" you're asking a question that for them, is simple nonsense: it's not something they believe in, so they have no need to defend that idea. It's faulty in conception.

Well, if that's what they believe, then that's sufficient and they don't need to offer any other explanation.

Only atheists have to explain everything.

The straight fact is that nobody understands how or why an ordered universe exists.

"How?" Well, there are various theories, of course...among them, Evolutionism and Creationism. And if one of those is right, then it won't turn out to be true that nobody knows.

There are hundreds of creation stories.

I could write one tomorrow if I wanted to.

And what if the one I write turns out to be true? Spooky.

But you missed the point. Both Atheists and Creationists have access to the mathematical and scientific demonstration of the necessity of some First Cause of the sort I described in my last message. And mathematics is just as certain for Atheists as for Creationists. So no reasonable person can actually doubt that.

Complete nonsense. An unjustified claim that 'mathematics' necessitates something physical. Lots of mathematical equations don't describe the real world.

"I don't personally see any evidence for God,"

And a theist says "I personally see evidence for God"

So?

Moving on.

I do know God.

That's nice.

[Gary Childress]

Oh wow! I missed his "I do know God" comment.

Hey, IC! Will you put in a word or two to God for me next time you two go golfing or whatever. Tell him I want world peace.

[Immanuel Can]

Attributing the order of the universe to God just moves the question to how did an ordered God got here.

It doesn't, actually. No Christians or Jews believe in a created God. They believe in the eternal God, the Supreme Being, and the First Cause of all things. So you can argue with them about the existence of such, but if you say, "How did God get here?" you're asking a question that for them, is simple nonsense: it's not something they believe in, so they have no need to defend that idea. It's faulty in conception.

Well, if that's what they believe, then that's sufficient and they don't need to offer any other explanation.

But they do. And Atheists have none.

But you missed the point. Both Atheists and Creationists have access to the mathematical and scientific demonstration of the necessity of some First Cause of the sort I described in my last message. And mathematics is just as certain for Atheists as for Creationists. So no reasonable person can actually doubt that.

Complete nonsense.

Ah. You're not familiar with the infinite regress problem?

It's quite interesting, actually. It's purely mathematical and deductive. You don't have to believe anything at all to see it's true -- except you have to believe in maths and logic, which I'm sure you'll say you do. But that's what makes it such a show-stopper for the Atheist set: it doesn't rely on any Theistic premises at all, just on maths and logic. And worse still, for the Atheist, it's also empirically confirmable. It's about the most purely scientific kind of proof one could offer.

"I don't personally see any evidence for God,"

And a theist says "I personally see evidence for God"

So?

So if he does, and he's telling the truth, then there IS evidence. The Atheists' insistence that there cannot be is at best, gratuitous...and at worst, dead wrong. I would say it's both, actually. And it's pretty easy to show that Theists DO point to evidence, whether the Atheist likes it or not.

But Atheists don't. They can't. They've got nothing.

Or prove me wrong: what's the Atheist's evidence AGAINST the existence of God? Trot it out. Let's check it out, together.

Of course, if they retort, "I don't see any evidence," that is one lame duck argument. It's not evidence of their claim. It's not even surprising, really. Or interesting. The Theist simply can say in reply, "I do believe what you say, that you're simply ignorant of the evidence." And that's that.