C S Lewis on atheism

Which of course means that life is an accident and has no meaning@Northwest

@Northwest More accurately, Atheism is not believing there are gods.

@Mathers You believe the only source of meaning is a higher power? How sad

@Mathers
Once more, that one is a folk conception of randomness and causation.
An armchair speculative thought.
To equate randomness (that is never absolute but materially restricted) with "accident" and causal determination with agency and a priori purpose is, at it´s very best, a fallacy of false opposites (formaly known as a false dilemma)

@ElRengo He criticized your English but you appear to have a better command of it than he.

@Sharon
I know that my English is far from enough.
But I doubt that that one is the main obstacle for this specific debate.

@ElRengo Almost as impressive sounding and yet seemingly meaningless as the Lewis quote. And what the heck is "formaly of false dilemma"??

@ChipmunkErnie He appears to mean "formerly false dilemma". Not bad for someone who doesn't have English as a first language.

@ChipmunkErnie
In logic, a formal resource for thought (where formal means with no need of ontologic commitment), a false dilemma is a choice between two wrongly formulated alternatives.
A cheap example would be to decide if cows have four pairs of wings instead of only one.
And just in case your next question is about no ontologic commitment, that logic statments do not necessarily validate the existence of their only formal propositions.
A bit like in math five camels are denoted for the sole purpose of quantity as five amoebas, not being materially the same.
So you shouldn´t infer form being both five that amoebas have humps.
You may think that those examples are ridiculous and they are.
But the argument from Lewis is of that same kind.

How wrong you are. @ElRengo

@Mathers
Good to know.

@Mathers
By your own definition of an accident.

You are merely a random collection of atoms@Northwest

@Mathers
Not really, but you could try to understand "order".

@Mathers
Atoms use to have the weird property of make collections interacting with the others and their enviroment according to the causal nature of our Universe.
Randomness as much as causality are restricted by materiality.
Learn what "degrees of freedom" may mean.

I have. But by that you are ascribing design @ElRengo

@Mathers
Again the false dilemma.
Even not being atheist myself and from a view compatible with science....there is no need to postulate a designer to make things be like how by their own means are.
Something like there is no need (and neither the smallest evidence) for an a priori "principle" called Life (the old "vitalism") to make biologic entities to live.
Neither a spectral concept as Being as cause of existence.
So no, I don´t share the assumptions of "design".

Absolute nonsense. Of course there is the need for a designer just as there is a need for Beethoven to write the ninth symphony. Unless you believe the ninth symphony can be written by chance @ElRengo

@Mathers Another example of trying to relate two totally unrelated concepts.

@Mathers
Once more........and the last time.

Your analogy is a non sequitur (traduced for just you: The first don´t imply the second)

The proposed alternative between design (versus) chance is not a needed one.
There is no need at all for a knower to define information.
It grows along sucesive steps of material reduction of the also materially restricted degrees of freedom.
(Told you to find out what that term means, seems that you can´t)

So look buddy, some more sophisticated creationsist than you are also tried to use even mathematical resources to prove your almost same point with less than brilliant success.
Of his intent of biased use of a probability related theorem, the original author said something like: "Your math is written in jelly".
Same can be said of your even less educated informal logic.

Listen buddy your talk sounds good but he doesn’t make sense, of course it takes intelligence to define information. The only known source of information we have is intelligence. Your maths might be written in jelly but mine isn’t@ElRengo

@Mathers It takes intelligence to undestand it too. That probably why you're struggling. English is not @ElRengo's first language but he's doing a better job of arguing his case in it than you are. He doesn't have to resort to childish insults as you do either.

For goodness sake, Ring another bell or shutup@Sharon

@Mathers You're getting frustrated now you've even run out of childish insults. Go and crawl back under your rock.

And the same old tune goes on@Sharon