I find creative/moral arguments for a creator to be fun little brain ticklers. But it’s a distraction. There is no evidence. Not even a sensible standard of potential evidence. It’s the sort of whimsical speculation you indulge in while running barefoot through wet grass while slightly drunk. Fundamentalists take all the fun out of it. Just like they do with food, sex, music and everything else.

Jefe,

Thank you for the references.

Having read through the entire thread I think I can say that the issues that ISOTC brought up (such as they were) have been comprehensively addressed. ISOTC does not like and will not accept the fact that there is not a shred of evidence for a supernatural creator and that ID is just pseudoscience in the service of human created gods and religious dogma. Unfortunately, I think that with ISOTC we have the makings of another BM, N/A or any of the other persistent nutters that wash up in here.

Oh, well, we ARE devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values. I want to see the stupidity and evil of religion disappear. I am here to serve. Thanks to all those who have made the effort to help ISOTC. It can be a tough job (and sometimes fun) but someone needs to do it.

Mike78 - 28 August 2012 02:36 PM

InSearchof theCreator - 28 August 2012 01:09 PM

Jefe - 28 August 2012 05:39 AM

InSearchof theCreator - 27 August 2012 08:10 PM

In the second paragraph you argue that I posit a creator based on no knowledge.  That is incorrect; no doubt a reflection of your acqired blindness to the possibility of a Creator.  In fact, what I did was to gather a large group of scientific discoveries of major features present in the universe for which there is not even a remote hint as to their origin. 

That we do not know the origin of these features, does not necessarily point to a creator.  It is perfectly valid to simply say we don’t know where these things came from.  To position a creator as the cause is merely an argument from incredulity.

 

InSearchof theCreator - 27 August 2012 08:10 PM

These features also appear to be vastly beyond any possibility of duplication by mankind (please don’t throw in the one about ‘soon we will create a test tube baby’). 

That we cannot reproduce these items similarly does not act as evidence for a creator.  There are many things we cannot ‘make’ and there are many things that are caused naturally by various forces in the cosmos.  Position a ‘creator’ as the cause of these things i likely a combination of over-active agent attribution and argument from incredulity.

InSearchof theCreator - 27 August 2012 08:10 PM

Things do have beginnings and ends—even universes.  The Creator is simply—and I know you will choke on this one, the First cause..

So everything has a beginning and end, except the creator?  Ignoring the issue of infinite regressions which you still haven’t satisfied, why is it that die hard believers insist that everything have an intelligent agent behind it except the creator?  Is it because of over-active agent attribution mixed with a healthy dose of argument from incredulity with a side order of social myth-programming? 

InSearchof theCreator - 27 August 2012 08:10 PM

Here is one argument that you can justly knock down:  I don’t understand how anyone can look at the cosmos as shown in the following. 

Textbook argument from incredulity.

 

Specialized prhrases such as “argument from increduilty” are unsuitable for a public forum.  Please clarify and resubmit your posting.

Objection.  Does not work that way.  Go learn something about rhetoric and come back better informed (and chastened perhaps).  This is not a hand-holding forum for creationists.

For reasons of clarity, all postings containing the phrase “argument from increduity” (or equivalent language) may be partially or totally ignored.  Go in peace..

InSearchof theCreator - 29 August 2012 05:19 AM

For reasons of clarity, all postings containing the phrase “argument from increduity” (or equivalent language) may be partially or totally ignored.  Go in peace..

That is certainly your choice to make. 

I will point out, however, that if you choose to base your position on identifiable logical fallacies, and ignore it when people point out those logical fallacies to you, then you likely won’t see a lot of traction in your threads.

It is not my intention to be mean or denigrate you for these positions, but if you are positing an opinion or position on a topic based on fallacious thinking, it becomes your responsibility to clear up or explain why the fallacy is not relevant to your position.

InSearchof theCreator - 29 August 2012 05:19 AM

For reasons of clarity, all postings containing the phrase “argument from increduity” (or equivalent language) may be partially or totally ignored.  Go in peace..

I think we’re done here.

ISOTC: For reasons of clarity, all postings containing the phrase “argument from increduity”[sic] (or equivalent language) may be partially or totally ignored. Go in peace..

What a conceited upstart! You had better be careful ISOTC or all of your messages may be ignored in their entirety by everybody.

ISC,

Your opening post stated that your approach was from the standpoint of logic and reason.  Now that you have been confronted with the failure of your logic (a subject of which you apparently are not well acquainted), you’re abandoning your approach.  Your closed mind has revealed itself.  These are the mental gymnastics of belief.  You aimed the weapons of reason and logic at your own head and threatened us that you would pull the trigger.  Were we supposed to plead with you not to do it?  Yawn.

Oh, and since he’s too lazy to look it up himself, here’s a definition in the form of examples of the Argument from Incredulity:

Divine fallacy (argument from incredulity)

Another variation of the fallacy goes something like this: I can’t figure this out, so paranormal forces must have done it. Or, This is amazing; therefore, paranormal forces did it. Or, I can’t think of any other explanation; therefore, paranormal forces did it. Or, this is just too weird; so, paranormal forces are behind it.http://www.skepdic.com/dvinefal.html

This argument is often used by children and unschooled people. It is a weak and fallacious argument which is also used by religious people who can’t figure things out or are too lazy to try or don’t want to try for fear of being wrong and who will accept no explanation but the one they are looking for and are determined to find.

ibanezerscrooge - 29 August 2012 05:40 AM

InSearchof theCreator - 29 August 2012 05:19 AM

For reasons of clarity, all postings containing the phrase “argument from increduity” (or equivalent language) may be partially or totally ignored.  Go in peace..

I think we’re done here.

Yeah, that argument clearly shows the mark of design.

I am constantly asked by believers “What kind of proof would it take for you to believe in God?”  I used to always try to give very specific answers related to acceptable forms of proof. It was always like talking to a brick wall.  Then one day I was asked the same “what kind of proof do you need?” question and it just popped out.  I flipped it around and asked them “What kind of proof would be required for you to stop believing in God?”  Crickets…..........more crickets…........and FINALLY the conversation was over.  They didn’t have to walk away mad…but they could do nothing but walk away.  Thankfully…I found the perfect way to back them down.  At least up to this point it has worked like a charm. They no longer search me out to attempt their conversion process.

Oooops

bobd3623 - 29 August 2012 11:39 AM

I am constantly asked by believers “What kind of proof would it take for you to believe in God?”  I used to always try to give very specific answers related to acceptable forms of proof. It was always like talking to a brick wall.  Then one day I was asked the same “what kind of proof do you need?” question and it just popped out.  I flipped it around and asked them “What kind of proof would be required for you to stop believing in God?”  Crickets…..........more crickets…........and FINALLY the conversation was over.  They didn’t have to walk away mad…but they could do nothing but walk away.  Thankfully…I found the perfect way to back them down.  At least up to this point it has worked like a charm. They no longer search me out to attempt their conversion process.

That’s interesting.  I like it.  My standard answer to the kind of proof question is hypothetical—what if god wrote the 10 commandments across the moon so that they could be seen and read from Earth with a telescope instead of giving them to moses on two tablets that he promptly smashed into pieces?  Surely that’s not beyond the what any believer maintains god has the power to do.  I suppose it begs the question of whether god or just some other space-taveling creature wrote across the moon, but I guess I’m not certain there would be much of a difference from an iron age bedouin perspective.

bobd3623 - 29 August 2012 11:39 AM

I am constantly asked by believers “What kind of proof would it take for you to believe in God?”  I used to always try to give very specific answers related to acceptable forms of proof. It was always like talking to a brick wall.  Then one day I was asked the same “what kind of proof do you need?” question and it just popped out.  I flipped it around and asked them “What kind of proof would be required for you to stop believing in God?”  Crickets…..........more crickets…........and FINALLY the conversation was over.  They didn’t have to walk away mad…but they could do nothing but walk away.  Thankfully…I found the perfect way to back them down.  At least up to this point it has worked like a charm. They no longer search me out to attempt their conversion process.

That is very good, I like it. One might also use: “The kind of proof which you don’t have.”

bobd3623 - 29 August 2012 11:39 AM

I am constantly asked by believers “What kind of proof would it take for you to believe in God?”  I used to always try to give very specific answers related to acceptable forms of proof ...

First step, what definition of “god” is on the table? From there you can point out the specific problems with finding the requested evidence.