Do you feel that atheism falls into the category of a religion? If yes, please explain. [Spirituality & Religion]

It does? How so?

To categorically say there is no God requires a leap of faith. @UnparalleledMonster:

@jennypenny:

It's not a leap of faith. It's a belief derived from the lack of compelling evidence to the contrary.

The evidence for design is so compelling that atheism requires a huge leap of faith@UnparalleledMonster:

@jennypenny: there isnt a single piece of evidence at all...

@jennypenny:

You find it compelling. Atheists don't.
That doesn't make it a leap of faith.

And at the risk of derailing the topic, i have to agree with Strawberrymilk that there is no evidence for design. Only perception.

Sorry, to me atheism is illogical as you believe a rational universe had an irrational beginning. There is of course an incredible amount of evidence for design if you only look for it. @UnparalleledMonster:

@jennypenny:

Why don't you give me your three BEST examples of evidence for design

Actually it is up to the atheist, when they look at the extreme fine tuning of the universe, to show how it could have happened by chance by the aid of unguided forces. Pkease do.@UnparalleledMonster:

@jennypenny:

I'm not sure what you mean by showing how it could have happened by chance.
The laws of physics are constant. The universe behaves in consistent and predictable ways. Complex systems develop from simpler ones. Inorganic molecules can precipitate organic molecules. This is well known.
If you mean that atheists should PROVE that these things happen without the ultimate intervention by a deity...well science is not a tool for investigating the supernatural.

[quote][quote]Actually it is up to the atheist[/quote][/quote]

I don't understand your hesitancy to provide examples if you believe them to be strong. This necessarily leads me to the conclusion that you do not feel there is strong evidence for design.
You claimed there was an " incredible amount of evidence for design".
If you're being intellectually honest there is no reason not to provide examples. You said there is a lot of evidence, i'm just asking for your best 3.
You made a positive claim and that requires evidence.

The fact that the laws of physics are so constant and also rational should prove to anyone the likelihood of the design. Else you believe in the rational universe with an irrational cause. And you don't even know what are your own mind is rational so how do you know whether your thoughts are rational? The fact that there are about 150 physical constants out there whch all have to be finely tuned in order that we exist to me points to a designer. One article:
https://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=184:the-fine-tuned-universe&catid=51:universe&Itemid=45

Now please give me some proofs the universe is not designed. Proofs not theories please
@UnparalleledMonster:

@jennypenny:

I think your mistake is in insisting on this model that a rational universe if not created by a designer necessarily came from an irrational cause.
I really don't understand this idea.
The laws of physics are what they are. In this universe, that is just how things work and that governs everything from planet formation to enzyme production.

I can understand if you mean an unguided origin, as in unguided by an intelligence. But you'll have to explain why it is "irrational"

[quote]The fact that there are about 150 physical constants out there whch all have to be finely tuned in order that we exist to me points to a designer[quote][/quote][/quote]

You're thinking that because the universe has to be as it is for humans to exist that it must have been designed that way.
Well that's ridiculous.
We exist because the environment was such that we were able to exist. Of course if things were different we wouldn't exist.

Think of it this way:

There's a hole in a dirt road. It rains and the hole fills up with water and forms a puddle.
The puddle says "This hole fits me exactly! If this hole was even slightly different i would not be as i am! This hole was designed for me."

The link you provided doesn't go beyond this. The writer acknowledges the logic that we exist because it is possible for us to exist but then he simply goes on to execute a probabilistic fallacy. That is to say he lists the things that happened (in impressive detail, certainly) in an effort to show how unlikely it was.

[quote]Now please give me some proofs the universe is not designed. Proofs not theories please[/quote]

Proofs? Are we dealing in proof now? Because i think you would be VERY hard pressed to show me PROOF of any of the claims you've made.

So i'll take your "fine tuned universe" examples as the first of your top 3. I think i have shown that it is not particularly strong. Essentially you've said "it is so unlikely that this universe should exist, therefor i have FAITH that god did it".

Sorry for the long post

Your analogy i'or the puddle is completely inadequate. The puddle is a random form caused by chance. Think of the trillion cells in your body all packed with information. A better analogy is that of a computer programme that carries information - can that be caused by unguided forces? Or does it need intelligence? @UnparalleledMonster:

@jennypenny:

[quote]. The puddle is a random form caused by chance[/quote]

Yup. And?

You've moved on from an argument that the universe is perfectly designed for life to an argument that cells hold genetic information which must therefore have been encoded by an intelligence.
But you're really just making the same argument over again: complexity means it was designed. Which is a faith based assumption.

But i don't think you're going to agree to that, so let's move on to more of the overwhelming evidence that exists for design.

I'm looking for two more examples. Only choose the ones you feel are the strongest. The most irrefutable evidence of design.
Also if you could answer my question about how a universe that arises without design is "irrational" that would be great.

sorry but you guys are all the same. When I use the software on this computer programme I surely don't have to prove it's designed. It's up to the doubter to prove the programme could have occured by chance as the result of unguided forces. The burden is on you to disprove design not on me to prove what is obvious! Please, disprove design. @UnparalleledMonster:

@jennypenny:

If you'd like to link you to several refutations of the watchmaker argument (which is essentially what you've just made with your software comparison) i can do so.


Just because it seems obvious to you does not make it true. Your perception of the "obvious" is subjective.
You make the claim that god exists.
That is a positive claim.
That requires proof or at least evidence.


So far you've given the evidence that the universe is just right for life and must therefore have been designed. This is of course not evidence but conjecture based on your presuppositions and perceptions of probability.

Do you have any better ones?

[quote] The burden is on you to disprove design [/quote]

Since you're asking me to prove a negative (which is virtually impossible), maybe you can help me out.
How would one disprove design? What is something you would take as proof that the universe isn't designed?

@UnparalleledMonster: the watchmakers so old hat. There have been so many advances in science on discoveries of fine tuning and information that exist with the creation that it has become irrelevant. You do seem rather out of touch with scientific advance and I would suggest you acquaint yourselves with them. And as to proving a negative, that's the task the atheist sets himself. Why atheism has alwayz been to me an illogical stance built on lack of evidence

@jennypenny:

[quote]the watchmakers so old hat[/quote]

I know. Which is why i found it silly that you were using it even if you were unaware you were doing so.

[quote]There have been so many advances in science on discoveries of fine tuning and information that exist with the creation[/quote]

Yeah, could you share some? Because i've asked a number of times for some evidence and you seem really reluctant to provide more than your assurances that they exist.

[quote]And as to proving a negative, that's the task the atheist sets himself. Why atheism has alwayz been to me an illogical stance built on lack of evidence[/quote]

Actually it's a task that theists have set for atheists.
How is it illogical to hold a position based on a lack of evidence?
I think you'll find that in every other scenario you would expect the party making the positive claim to show evidence:

Bigfoot exists - prove it, show me the evidence
The earth is flat - prove it, show me the evidence
Fairies are real - prove it, show me the evidence

The burden of proof is NEVER on the party who is skeptical about a positive claim and in every other arena besides god there is no argument about this fact.
Can you name another example of a positive claim in which the skeptical party is responsible for disproving it?
I doubt it.

But again, because i am curious as to your answer, hypothetically, what would constitute proof or evidence that the universe wasn't designed?

You are of course completely impossoble to argue with as you are not arguing about the real issues. We are not here talking about blind wTchmakers or fairies at the bottom of the garden. We leave them to the simplistic arguments of peopke like Richard Dawkins. What we are talking about here are real issues like the incredible amount of fine tuning which is in the universe and which no atheist can seem to explain that it came about by mere unguided forces. There is also the incredible amount of information which is in each of us and which is in each living organism which you haven't even attempted to explain where it came from. The problem is that information comes from intelligence that is the only place scientifically we know that information comes from. How does information such as a extremely complicated software programme come about by on guided forces. Please explain that scientifically and we might start taking you seriously. Unfortunately you don't even appear to know the issues that are indulging in simplistic arguments that you've obviously read somewhere. Please have a look at what the real issues are rather than talking about vague philosophical terms which you know little or nothing about@UnparalleledMonster:

@jennypenny:

Well that post lacked much in the way of content. I didn't know we were moving on from discussion to enumerating the other persons faults.

[quote]There is also the incredible amount of information which is in each of us [/quote]

Sorry, i thought we'd covered this. Must have been with someone else.
Simple answer: the same way everything else evolved. From simple to complex.
At the base of it we have nothing more than the physical attraction between chemicals. The same attraction you might find between hydrogen and oxygen. These chemically attractive molecules then become attractive to other chemicals.
Bam, proteins and amino acids. Modern organisms have 20 amino acids but these can be traced to a condensed 10 amino acids that are found in more ancient organisms.
Just like everything else, our genetic information started simply and grew in complexity. It began as simple chemical interactions forming molecules, these molecules became complex to the point they began to replicate.
This is a broad explanation but i think it will be sufficient for this forum.

[quote] Unfortunately you don't even appear to know the issues that are indulging in simplistic arguments that you've obviously read somewhere[/quote]

Yeah, you keep saying i'm unaware. I might be. I don't know because to this point in the discussion the only issue you have raised is "omg the universe is so complex".
And would you give an example of simplistic arguments that i have read somewhere? I

[quote]What we are talking about here are real issues like the incredible amount of fine tuning which is in the universe[/quote]

If you say the universe is fine tuned one more time without giving me the examples you feel evince this fact i'm gonna lose my mind.
You're making that claim over and over and you. are. not. supporting it

It really has appeared through this entire discussion that you are trying to maintain an air of superiority by calling me ill informed or illogical and you have yourself not shown even a hint of more than superficial understanding of the subject. To this point i have reserved judgement, trying to coax you into engaging on a more meaningful level.
This is your last chance.

What are your BEST examples for evidence of design. Obviously fine-tuning is out since you're only counterargument was the fact that our genes contain a lot of information.

@jennypenny:

P.S. Good call on dropping the debate about who has the burden of proof.

Unless you agreed that the burden is on us to prove that bigfoot doesn't exist

I find it amusing that you say my post/content when every single post of yours lacks any form of content or proof of the point you are trying to make. The problem is this been proved that chemicals just could not have evolved into living things like you say. You are apparently reading ancient textbooks which claim chemical evolution when anyone who is up-to-date in science knows that chemical evolution has been disproved. Even Kenyon the man who wrote a book on chemical evolution which became the standard textbook has now said that his theories were wrong. Your whole argument has no substance whatsoever because you don't even appear to know what fine tuning is no do you appear to know what information is. I suggest we leave our discussion there until you do some more reading on the subject and actually find out what we talking about.@UnparalleledMonster: and the fact that you say that the debate on Bigfoot is in the same category as the debate on God just proves how facile your arguments are and howsimplistic your thinking is. Please try to think rather than churning out these tired old arguments many of have heard and discredited for years. @UnparalleledMonster: @UnparalleledMonster:

@jennypenny:

lol you're growing tedious. You won't give evidence of design. You just won't do it. The ONLY evidence you've given so far is that life is complex.

[quote] chemical evolution has been disproved[/quote]

Feel free to link me to your source for that.

Put up or shut up, jenny. Give me your best evidence for a designed universe. Don't make excuses, don't waste time talking about my education. Just do it.
Until you're willing to do that, you have nothing to say that interests me.
But we both know you won't be doing that so i guess this is as far as this discussion goes.

[quote] and the fact that you say that the debate on Bigfoot is in the same category as the debate on God [/quote]

Guess that went over your head a bit. The concept of burden of proof is the same. You make a claim that something exists then you have to give evidence.

It's obviously pointless continuing to discuss with you as you appear to be totally unaware of advances in scientific knowledge. Yu don't appear even to know about what you are talkng about. So far you haven't given me one single proof of how fine tuning or information could have come about with the aid only of blind forces. These are the issues you have to grapple with intellectually but all you can say is 'put up or shut up'. I am now saying the same thing to you: put up or shut up. I just cannot debate with someone who doesn't even know the issues let alone the answers. @UnparalleledMonster:

@jennypenny:

[quote] I just cannot debate[quote][/quote][/quote]

lol probably could have just left it there.

I gave you one of the possible explanations of how genetic information arose. You claimed it was disproved but can't seem to produce a source.
We know that genetic information changes and grows in complexity. All you're doing is making the same argument as the big bang: "we don't know for sure how it started so god done it".

You keep repeating that i'm behind the times and i don't know what i'm talking about. I don't know the issues.
Well, educate me. Give me a jumping off point because so far you've only given superficial and vague references to fine tuning.

I've at least tried to answer your question.
You could at least put in the same effort and give me some of these many, many examples of design.

Now you might be tempted to give an excuse that it's not your job or you can't be be bothered or repeat that i'm just too ignorant.
Or you could show some intellectual honesty