A challenge to theists. Can you be honest.

Author: zedvictor4

Posts

Total: 436
#301
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ATroubledMan
The available body of facts and information can be found in the overwhelming data base of religious and spiritual sources, that's up to you to source.
No, it isn't up to me to source, that's not how these discussions work. I don't support your claims

That came out wrong or you misunderstood what I meant, I wasn't saying you need to source MY claims. What I meant was that if you're interested in the claims and knowledge about God then you should be educating and examining the works of religious and spiritual sources yourself rather than always relying on an incomplete source. You should be aware that the scientific method only deals with one nature of our experience. There's a whole data base of facts and insights at your finger tips of what correlates with that field of knowledge. 

#302
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'm done with your nonsense.


Is it nonsense to ask someone to explain themselves? Or, is it nonsense for someone to make claims and not explain themselves? If you never asked anyone to explain themselves, then how is it you manage anything in life? Did your teachers in school not explain to you? Does your doctor not explain anything to you? Does your mechanic not explain anything to you when your car breaks down?

The universe is made up of intelligent processes that achieve a particular ends, it operates as an intelligent source, that source would be what we call God (Creator). God uses the processes we observe in the universe to bring things into existence.
That is your claim and it is your responsibility to explain how that happens using evidence. So far, what we know about the universe, no such intelligent source has ever been discovered. Therefore, you have a very difficult task to show otherwise.

Processes do not occur all by themselves, it takes an intelligent source or operator to produce and direct results in a definitive manner. Nothing builds (evolves) itself into existence that has no way of planning, manufacturing or accomplishing that which would entail intelligence.
That's false, all natural events that we currently understand can be shown to occur entirely on their own. If you are claiming otherwise, then you have to prove it. All life evolved from simple beginnings through natural selection and mutation, a process driven entirely on its own. That alone refutes your claim.

It is irrational to believe and accept that inanimate (unintelligent) forces could ever produce anything let alone intelligent processes that manufacture intelligence and sentience.
It can't be irrational if it's already proven to be true. Your statement is false and does not follow common sense.

We associate processes with intelligence or a mind, processes are always associated with intelligence. Production is always associated with a producer, developer is required for something to be developed.... one requires the other.
Yes, when people design and manufacture things, we can easily see the blueprints, the manufacturing process. I already explained that using the example of a commercial airliner. Unfortunately, it does not apply to natural processes.

Evidence (which includes the above assessments as well)
Your evidence so far has been a series of false statements. Evidence to support your claims would be evidence a Prime Mover, which is tantamount to your claim.

Every single result of a production (process) in our real world I can present the originator of, not a single thing that has been produced can be shown to have created itself.
As I said, that doesn't apply to natural processes, science has already established that.

Can anyone show or produce evidence of anything in the real world producing itself without a producer, creator, developer, manufacturer, builder, designer ect ect?
Maybe not, but in nature, there are many. Natural selection is just one example. 

In our real life experience everything that brings about a result requires intelligence, so why when it comes to the productions of the universe is anyone willing to that fact?
That's a Strawman argument. That has nothing to do with natural processes that have been shown to occur entirely on their own.

Science doesn't claim processes occur all by themselves
Science doesn't have to make that claim, the processes themselves demonstrate they occur on their own.

To make the assumption that the scientific method exempts God or a Creator from the equation is to abruptly inject ones own presumptions
That's another Strawman argument, no one ever said that.

 Science is not atheistic, it is a neutral study meaning that it is not only compatible with Theism but it shows the processes of how God creates things.
Science does not show any God in the processes of nature, that is your personal opinion.

 Nothing ever comes from nothing since there was always something (intelligence/awareness) out of which all processes occur, this is a superior platform to any other hypothesis than to accept that somehow inanimate forces of nature developed intelligent processes.
That is your personal opinion and has already been refuted by the processes of nature. Evolution by natural selection is but one process that occurs entirely on its own, which refutes that statement.

Evolution is also NOT an atheistic proposition even though it is presumed by atheists.
Not at all, many religious people all over the world accept evolution as fact and understand that the process of natural selection occurs entirely on its own. Others believe it is driven by God, but their beliefs have been refuted.

Evolution too is a process that brings about a desired intelligent ends and results, it is by this very process how God plans and achieves that which It wants to create. It is by that very process why you even exist as a human, why we have the benefit of looking out into creation to observe the many beautiful species that exist as they do.
Almost 98% of all species to ever exist on Earth are now extinct. The reason for that is because natural selection is a process that occurs entirely on its own.

Anyone willing to consider this as a legit premise feel free to engage and move forward. There's lots more to discuss, how God did all this and by what methods, why does God create anything...how does this relate to you personally, what is a soul, why do we need physical bodies, why are there many different religions, what is the purpose behind spirituality ect ect just let me know.
Unfortunately, your argument has been refuted by science, so you can't move forward until you explain yourself. All you've done so far is make claims and false statements about nature and it's processes.

I hope you have better luck, looking forward to seeing your explanations about God.
#303
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
 What I meant was that if you're interested in the claims and knowledge about God then you should be educating and examining the works of religious and spiritual sources
I'm quite aware of them already. The source of the Abrahamic religions for creation goes back to Genesis, which is a very short compilation of verses that say very little. Other sources for creation stories from other religions are readily available and have equally been refuted.

#304
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
 faith is trust and confidence, both trust and confidence are developed through evidence, experience and reason. Spiritual faith is not to believe in things with no reason or evidence, that's contrary to what it means to have faith.
Here is the other definition of faith, which actually does refer specifically to Spiritual faith.

Faith - strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
#305
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
Here is the true definition of what faith is. 


Hebrews 11 King James Version (KJV)
11 1: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

#306
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ATroubledMan

If the person can't explain anything in regards to God, why then would they claim that what they say is legitimate? I used the example of flying pigs. If I can't explain why pigs can fly, but will claim I know they can, how is that legitimate
Depends. If someone claims they've seen pigs fly in some remote area of Wisconsin, and they didn't have a camera at the time, if you were interested to find out if it were true, you'd take a trip to that remote location in Wisconsin.

If you don't, you're left with the same problem about God. You could just base you're assumption on the fact that you never saw a flying pig.

The problem is there's a possibility there may be a flying pig there. The person who makes the claim is not at fault if there is and you never find out because you can't expect people to always carry a camera. Not everyone uses a smart phone.

I wouldn't agree with that, God wants people to have faith in Him.
If 2 Christians were playing golf together, and one of them leaned towards pre-tribulation, the other mid-tribulation, couldn't both of them still have faith in God?
#307
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
Depends. If someone claims they've seen pigs fly in some remote area of Wisconsin, and they didn't have a camera at the time, if you were interested to find out if it were true, you'd take a trip to that remote location in Wisconsin.

If you don't, you're left with the same problem about God. You could just base you're assumption on the fact that you never saw a flying pig.

The problem is there's a possibility there may be a flying pig there. The person who makes the claim is not at fault if there is and you never find out because you can't expect people to always carry a camera. Not everyone uses a smart phone.
That's not really how the discussion was going. Et was claiming he knows himself his claims about a Creator are true, so I used the example that I knew pigs could fly and that if neither one of us was going to offer any detailed explanations with evidence, then both claims can be dismissed.

If 2 Christians were playing golf together, and one of them leaned towards pre-tribulation, the other mid-tribulation, couldn't both of them still have faith in God?
Sure, but neither one was probably using reason, logic or rationale based on evidence, they were both using faith based on Scriptures.
#308
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ATroubledMan
That's not really how the discussion was going. Et was claiming he knows himself his claims about a Creator are true, so I used the example that I knew pigs could fly and that if neither one of us was going to offer any detailed explanations with evidence, then both claims can be dismissed.
If someone told you they saw a flying pig in a remote area of Wisconsin, what kind of detailed explanations with evidence would you require? Given that they didn't have a camera.

Sure, but neither one was probably using reason, logic or rationale based on evidence, they were both using faith based on Scriptures
Suppose there were 2 people that witnessed that flying pig in a remote area of Wisconsin. One claimed the pig was a Berkshire, the other claimed it was a Hampshire, both basing their claim on their understanding of each specie's fur colors. Would you say they were using logic, reasoning, and rationale by determining specie fur color? Or not using logic, reasoning, and rationale based on your belief that flying pigs don't exist?

#309
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@EtrnlVw
A yes would have done. However, I question your position you keep asserting that all processes are associated with an intelligence. How do you associate the formation of anything in nature with an intelligence. Also can you show that the definitions you've given are using your definition of process or a definition that requires intelligence? If not then you're making an equivocation fallacy, if they are then I question how anyone determines that which you've listed is associated with an intelligence? In short you've got yourself a semantic argument that doesn't seem able to lead to any logical conclusions.

Processes do not occur all by themselves, it takes an intelligent source or operator to produce and direct results in a definitive manner. Nothing builds (evolves) itself into existence that has no way of planning, manufacturing or accomplishing that which would entail intelligence.
Unless evolution, the formations of planets and galaxies and all the other processes in nature do of course. Can you show they don't, or is this just an assumption on your part?

Evidence (which includes the above assessments as well)=
"that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."
"something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign"
"information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"
"something presented in support of the truth or accuracy of a claim"

=Observations of real life activities (independent of nature, since I'm arguing that those are the processes of a Creator), real life productions, real life manufacturing, real life creations (art), real life development, real life construction, real life building, real life assembly ect ect, we know from real world observations that all those things require there to be a source to begin, evolve and accomplish anything.
Every single result of a production (process) in our real world I can present the originator of, not a single thing that has been produced can be shown to have created itself.

All your observation shows is that humans can initiate processes, it doesn't in any way show or suggest that all processes are initiated by intelligence. To dismiss those processes not initiated by humans is a logical fallacy (no true scotsman). All processes are valid for consideration logically speaking, so I ask can you show an intelligence associated with evolution, the formation of planets or the formation of galaxies?

Ultimately when you can show any processes that wasn't initiated by humans that can be associated with an intelligence then your argument has legs until then you can't show that all processes are associated with intelligence. Have you got any such process?

Can anyone show or produce evidence of anything in the real world producing itself without a producer, creator, developer, manufacturer, builder, designer ect ect?
Produce themselves is somewhat malformed as a question, we can't see anything produce itself even with an intelligence, what we can see however are planets formed without any sign of intelligence. To dismiss this is a no true scotsman argument (it dismisses anything that doesn't fit your argument).

In our real life experience everything that brings about a result requires intelligence, so why when it comes to the productions of the universe is anyone willing to that fact?
The formation of planets and galaxies is real life and you've yet to show any intelligence associated with them?

Science doesn't claim processes occur all by themselves, it examines how things operate and reports an accurate depiction of that alone, it makes no claims or objections about a possible God. Science is a method WE use, it has no mind or knowledge of its own, it just examines what we feed it and what we put into it. It reveals what ingredients are in a recipe but makes no reference to a maker because that's not a factor it can reach. To make the assumption that the scientific method exempts God or a Creator from the equation is to abruptly inject ones own presumptions. Science is not atheistic, it is a neutral study meaning that it is not only compatible with Theism but it shows the processes of how God creates things.
I haven't made any claims that science does. What I have done is ask you how you verify your claims. So, I ask again can you verify that the processes we see in nature are associated with an intelligence. Since your exclusion of natural processes is a no true scotsman fallacy unless you can present a reason for not including them. You are asserting all A require B. For that to be sound you must show that all A must in fact require B. In this case all processes are valid even the ones you're questioning. You still can't show your assertion that all processes are associated with an intelligence, if you can't then your argument flounders, so far you haven't.

All this aside, I make no presumptions, I don't presume that the universe is a product of design or that isn't. I would say with the information we have available and the existence of the flaws in your logic (I've raised them in previous paragraphs and posts) the only logical conclusion that I can make is that the origins of the universe and the necessity of a creator is an unknown. When you can show a process not initiated by humans that is associated with an intelligence then you have an argument, until then you're simply showing that intelligence can initiate processes rather than that all processes are the product of intelligence.

It is completely rational and logical to embrace a Theistic proposition of creation. Nothing ever comes from nothing since there was always something (intelligence/awareness) out of which all processes occur, this is a superior platform to any other hypothesis than to accept that somehow inanimate forces of nature developed intelligent processes. In a nutshell, all the things mentioned above have an intelligent cause and a rational reason why anything or any processes even begin and produce results. Evolution is also NOT an atheistic proposition even though it is presumed by atheists. Evolution too is a process that brings about a desired intelligent ends and results, it is by this very process how God plans and achieves that which It wants to create. It is by that very process why you even exist as a human, why we have the benefit of looking out into creation to observe the many beautiful species that exist as they do.
Can you verify there was always something or is this an assertion? So far you've shown no reason it's more logical to conclude that god created the universe than to conclude that we don't know how the universe came to be. A position that doesn't require any presupposition and so far seems to be backed by all the reasoning and evidence I'm aware of.

As for your statement 'this is a superior platform to any other hypothesis than to accept that somehow inanimate forces of nature developed intelligent processes' I must who is asserting that the processes are intelligent? How do you know the processes are intelligent? Can you demonstrate that any process is intelligent? Humans initiate processes, but do you propose that the processes themselves are intelligent, if so can you substantiate that claim? If not then your question doesn't work. However if you mean processes that lead to an intended result then can you show the result of any natural process is intended and not simply the result of unintelligent forces interacting with each other? You're making a lot of claims, but so far you don't be seeming to show any reason they should be accepted as verifiable.

You say 'Evolution is also NOT an atheistic proposition even though it is presumed by atheists. Evolution too is a process that brings about a desired intelligent ends and results, it is by this very process how God plans and achieves that which It wants to create.' Are you able to show evolution has an intended result or do you just assume this because it gets a result you approve of? As for 'It is by that very process why you even exist as a human, why we have the benefit of looking out into creation to observe the many beautiful species that exist as they do.' This seems neither here nor there.

As for this: 'it is by this very process how God plans and achieves that which It wants to create. It is by that very process why you even exist as a human, why we have the benefit of looking out into creation to observe the many beautiful species that exist as they do.' Can you verify any of this, that god exists? That the processes are part of this plan?

Anyone willing to consider this as a legit premise feel free to engage and move forward. There's lots more to discuss, how God did all this and by what methods, why does God create anything...how does this relate to you personally, what is a soul, why do we need physical bodies, why are there many different religions, what is the purpose behind spirituality ect ect just let me know.
I'm more than willing to consider the possibility that it's a legitimate premise, I just need it to be established as a legitimate premise first, the same as any premise. In fact I am considering it right now. When the logical flaws I've presented are addressed I may even be willing to accept it as a legitimate premise.
#310
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
A yes would have done.

I wasn't trying to be a smart ass my friend, I was trying to give you some clarity. Sorry. We're going to have to condense this somehow so I'm going to respond to the most definitive inquiries as they all seem to have the same questions involved. We had the same problem with the other member in this thread lol. I feel the premise is solid and conclusive so I'm not sure why there is any confusion about it. Both of you keep asking how I associate processes with intelligence and I've made that pretty clear. It's not a complicated answer, it's simply a rational common sense judgement.

Part of my answer is to ask you a common sense question, how could any inanimate force (or a nothing) create, generate or produce a process in the first place? for there to be a process, there needs to be first a plan, then a curse of action to bring that process to fruition and of course to completion. Inanimate forces and elements can't think on their own, they can't plan and generate intelligent processes all by themselves. All the processes we see take place in the real world originate first with an intelligence whether that be with a human or a creature.

Everything we know of in the real world is generated, manufactured, developed, produced, constructed through a plan, then materials, then a process to get from a plan to materials to a result or finished product.
I'm extending that same premise to creation or the universe. What is there to be unsure about? where did I leave room for any inconclusiveness? I can't make it any simpler or easier to get.
So far, no one has been able to give me a straight answer to the above question other than they just accept or believe that it does happen, or to lecture me what is involved in a given process. That's not what I'm asking....How does a process occur at all without intelligence? show me how that happens. I want to know right at the moment something begins to generate a process what generated or initiated that occurrence, if you have no real answer then the proposition I'm laying out should be considered as a legitimate one.
Because ultimately there is no alternative, the answer is right smack in your face. Intelligence is what generates processes, we know that because we have our own experience of that in the real world.

 However, I question your position you keep asserting that all processes are associated with an intelligence. How do you associate the formation of anything in nature with an intelligence. Also can you show that the definitions you've given are using your definition of process or a definition that requires intelligence? If not then you're making an equivocation fallacy, if they are then I question how anyone determines that which you've listed is associated with an intelligence? In short you've got yourself a semantic argument that doesn't seem able to lead to any logical conclusions.

If what I have said ISN'T logical I don't know what you would be convinced by TBH. I mean it doesn't get any more logical than what I just pointed out, what I've been saying the whole time.

Unless evolution, the formations of planets and galaxies and all the other processes in nature do of course. Can you show they don't, or is this just an assumption on your part?

An assumption would be to make an assertion without any reason or proof, that is an insult to my intelligence and quite frankly I'm sick of the accusation altogether. There's plenty of reason to consider what I'm saying, I just laid it out above. The proof of the premise is much more complicated because my beliefs don't actually rest on this one argument. I believe the proof that God exists can be seen at many different angles so because I have already found it convincing and know that God exists I'm giving you a foundation or platform to consider that removes the idea that somehow processes can occur all by themselves. It's based on common sense not necessarily proof, at the same time I'm not making an assumption. Even if it were just an assumption that doesn't really mean it ain't true.

At some point you should be willing to accept the reasoning behind what I'm saying, at least to move forward in the discussion.
I don't have to show that processes don't just occur all by themselves, it's silly to even accept that they do because I know they don't, it's supported by the fact that everything that we know of that was developed had a developer.....cars don't just invent themselves, buildings don't just build themselves, construction doesn't just construct itself, processes don't just produce themselves ect ect That's why I'm appealing to common sense logic. I can show you all the materials and processes involved in any given product like I can show you the materials and processes involved in the products of the universe but all those things had a producer.

#311
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
As for your statement 'this is a superior platform to any other hypothesis than to accept that somehow inanimate forces of nature developed intelligent processes' I must who is asserting that the processes are intelligent? How do you know the processes are intelligent? Can you demonstrate that any process is intelligent?

Yes, by the very products we have in our world. I can't even believe anyone could ask that with a straight face. How are processes NOT intelligent, can you answer that? how could something of no intelligence produce something? in order for there to even be a production in the first place there needs to be a producer...how can something produce itself?

Humans initiate processes, but do you propose that the processes themselves are intelligent, if so can you substantiate that claim? If not then your question doesn't work.

Again this is showing me you're not getting a very simple idea. I'm not saying the processes themselves are intelligent, I'm saying the processes occur through an intelligent source just like you said above, HUMANS INTINIATE PROCESESS, I'm extending that same premise to the universe! GOD INITIATES PROCESSES.

However if you mean processes that lead to an intended result then can you show the result of any natural process is intended

Yes, if it is indeed intended, then there needs to be someone that intended it. We can show that by the results of any given process, that it had intention. 

Intention
a thing intended; an aim or plan.
what one intends to do or bring about
An aim that guides action; an objective
the end or object intended; purpose.
Intention involves mental activities such as planning and forethought or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result.
Intentions", "Intent", "Purpose"

To me, it's obvious the processes that have occurred in the universe had an intended purpose or intention, just by observing the results. 

#312
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
Part of my answer is to ask you a common sense question, how could any inanimate force (or a nothing) create, generate or produce a process in the first place? for there to be a process, there needs to be first a plan, then a curse of action to bring that process to fruition and of course to completion. Inanimate forces and elements can't think on their own, they can't plan and generate intelligent processes all by themselves. All the processes we see take place in the real world originate first with an intelligence whether that be with a human or a creature.


The answer to your question is simple. I don't know, but then I also don't know how an intelligence could initiate the formation of planets, galaxies or evolution. This is an argument from ignorance and in no way makes your claim stronger.

As for consolidating this, you can do it by answering one simple question. Can you show anything in nature that can be shown to fit your definition of process (not simply has been called a process by others, but can actually fit your definition of process), including being associated with an intelligence?

Also you're again misusing the term 'real world' unless you don't think the formation of planets occurs in the real world? If you do then I would point out that we see can observe no intelligence in that process so your argument fails.

Everything we know of in the real world is generated, manufactured, developed, produced, constructed through a plan, then materials, then a process to get from a plan to materials to a result or finished product.
I'm extending that same premise to creation or the universe. What is there to be unsure about? where did I leave room for any inconclusiveness? I can't make it any simpler or easier to get.
Actually only that made by humans can be shown to fit that description. Can you demonstrate the intelligence in the growing of a tree? Or anything else in nature?

No, you're looking at the fact that humans apply intelligence to create and using that to conclude that everything must be created. A simple question (to help with our efforts to consolidate). Why does the fact that intelligence can initiate processes demonstrate the the formation of planets, galaxies or evolution required an intelligence? What is your logical argument for that?

So far, no one has been able to give me a straight answer to the above question other than they just accept or believe that it does happen, or to lecture me what is involved in a given process. That's not what I'm asking....How does a process occur at all without intelligence? show me how that happens. I want to know right at the moment something begins to generate a process what generated or initiated that occurrence, if you have no real answer then the proposition I'm laying out should be considered as a legitimate one.
This is a false dichotomy. An argument isn't taken as valid simply because there's no other valid argument, that dismisses the possibility of the position that it's inconclusive/unknown. You are also making the argument from ignorance. That I don't know how a thing is done doesn't mean a thing is done. Your position only becomes valid when you can show that it's valid, can you show any reason an intelligence is involved in the formation of anything in nature (as in not made by humans)? It's totally unimportant to the argument if I or anyone else can explain how processes (again I believe this is an equivocation fallacy, can you show that when the quotes you used were using the term process they meant to associate it with an intelligence, rather than simply meaning: 'a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner' if not it's disingenuous to try to use that wording to further your argument.

Because ultimately there is no alternative, the answer is right smack in your face. Intelligence is what generates processes, we know that because we have our own experience of that in the real world.
No, our experiences show that intelligence can create processes, we've not got any evidence that only intelligence can create processes and in all of nature (that not made by human) we've not got one example of a process that can be shown to be associated to an intelligence have we?

If what I have said ISN'T logical I don't know what you would be convinced by TBH. I mean it doesn't get any more logical than what I just pointed out, what I've been saying the whole time.
I've addressed several logical flaws in your position that you have simply ignored, there's the no true scotsman of dismissing natural processes from the consideration when establishing if processes must be associated with intelligence (they're examples of a process, yet you've not shown one that can be shown to be associated with an intelligence, so you simply state the don't count without presenting any logical argument for why). You have equivocation fallacies (you haven't established that any of the sources you've cited were using your definition of process or in any way trying to suggest intelligence was involved in the formation of any of the things you've mentioned). You've begged the question in past posts and you've got the argument from ignorance. Oh, I almost forgot the argument from incredulity. None of these lead to any a conclusion that can be shown logically to be true.

Going back to the root of all this. Can you show A) that the universe is developed by (or barring what humans do even shows examples of) processes as you define process? If not then how can you conclude the universe is developed by processes (I'm looking for a logical argument that requires you to show that the processes in question fit your definition, not simply that other people use the term process for them, that would be either an equivocation fallacy, or else simply mean other people were making the same claim as you, not that it had in any way been substantiated). B) If you decide to continue to hold premise A (the universe is developed by processes) as true, then can you show that processes must be associated with intelligence? I would point out the processes that develop the universe as an example of processes in which no intelligence can be shown to be involved.

An assumption would be to make an assertion without any reason or proof, that is an insult to my intelligence and quite frankly I'm sick of the accusation altogether. There's plenty of reason to consider what I'm saying, I just laid it out above. The proof of the premise is much more complicated because my beliefs don't actually rest on this one argument. I believe the proof that God exists can be seen at many different angles so because I have already found it convincing and know that God exists I'm giving you a foundation or platform to consider that removes the idea that somehow processes can occur all by themselves. It's based on common sense not necessarily proof, at the same time I'm not making an assumption. Even if it were just an assumption that doesn't really mean it ain't true.
I've presented logical fallacies within your argumentation that you've yet to address, this means your logic is questionable at best. Have you got proof beyond your logical arguments? If not then it's an assumption. For that matter can you present your argument in a formal fashion so we can more carefully address if it's logical or not? Also what exactly is this common sense you keep addressing? Common sense tells me that if A cannot be verified to be there then barring an immediate need (such as for the sake of safety) then there's not logical reason to assume A. In this case A would be an intelligence involved in the initiation of natural processes.

At some point you should be willing to accept the reasoning behind what I'm saying, at least to move forward in the discussion.
I don't have to show that processes don't just occur all by themselves, it's silly to even accept that they do because I know they don't, it's supported by the fact that everything that we know of that was developed had a developer.....cars don't just invent themselves, buildings don't just build themselves, construction doesn't just construct itself, processes don't just produce themselves ect ect That's why I'm appealing to common sense logic. I can show you all the materials and processes involved in any given product like I can show you the materials and processes involved in the products of the universe but all those things had a producer.
I would point out you're making an assumption that the universe was 'developed' that's something of a loaded term. We see many things grow and form that don't show any indication of an intelligence in their formation. This still suffers from your tendency to only include human made items in your argument, again, can you show the intelligence behind a growing tree? What about a fire from lightning? Or anything else we see form in nature? Your last sentence is a claim. Can you show that anything not made by humans had a producer? Or is this supposition on your part? Before you jump to 'show me something that wasn't produced by an intelligence' I would point to anything that formed without human or animal involvement as being examples of why we can't conclude the necessity of an intelligence in the formation of nature, we are only able to logically conclude that intelligence can create, not that all things that form must be creations of intelligence. Can you present your argument for why this must be the case? As for what I should be willing to accept, that's quite simple. I am willing to accept your reasoning when it's sound and supported by logical arguments that are fallacy free. In short address the fallacies I've brought up in past posts and we'll get there. I would suggest presenting your claims as formal arguments so we may more accurately and logically deconstruct and consider them.
#313
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
Yes, by the very products we have in our world. I can't even believe anyone could ask that with a straight face. How are processes NOT intelligent, can you answer that? how could something of no intelligence produce something? in order for there to even be a production in the first place there needs to be a producer...how can something produce itself?
Ah, no the initiator of a process may be intelligent, but that doesn't mean the process is intelligent. If it is an interaction of forces then we've no way to show that it has any intelligence, so we can only tell that there is any association between a process and intelligence if we are able to verify that the process is initiated by an intelligence, something you haven't yet been willing to do with any process not initiated by humans. Can you? Also you end this with a straw man, I've never claimed anything produces itself. This may be a false dichotomy on your part, let me ask you this, why can't something be produced by unintelligent interactions of forces?

Again this is showing me you're not getting a very simple idea. I'm not saying the processes themselves are intelligent, I'm saying the processes occur through an intelligent source just like you said above, HUMANS INTINIATE PROCESESS, I'm extending that same premise to the universe! GOD INITIATES PROCESSES.
The big difference is that you're claiming processes occur only through an intelligent source. What I am asking is how can you verify that? We see many things that you call processes in nature that lack any sign of intelligent involvement. On what grounds are you extending the premise?

Yes, if it is indeed intended, then there needs to be someone that intended it. We can show that by the results of any given process, that it had intention. 

Intention
a thing intended; an aim or plan.
what one intends to do or bring about
An aim that guides action; an objective
the end or object intended; purpose.
Intention involves mental activities such as planning and forethought or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result.
Intentions", "Intent", "Purpose"

To me, it's obvious the processes that have occurred in the universe had an intended purpose or intention, just by observing the results. 


How do you determine that the formation of planets must have been the product of intention? Or life, or galaxies or... Well anything in nature? To say that you think it's obvious isn't a logical argument at all, do you have a logical argument or is this just your opinion?
#314
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
We had the same problem with the other member in this thread lol. I feel the premise is solid and conclusive so I'm not sure why there is any confusion about it. Both of you keep asking how I associate processes with intelligence and I've made that pretty clear. It's not a complicated answer, it's simply a rational common sense judgement.
Yes, both MDH2000 and I are asking you exactly the same questions to which you are not providing explanations. He has pointed out the appropriate logical fallacies you keep committing. 

#315
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
The answer to your question is simple. I don't know, but then I also don't know how an intelligence could initiate the formation of planets, galaxies or evolution. This is an argument from ignorance and in no way makes your claim stronger.

Of course it does silly, I have an answer and you don't. If someone asked us what is 2+2 and your answer was I don't know and mine was 4 who's answer is stronger?? just because you're not acknowledging my answer as a legit one means basically nothing.
God creates and forms things just like any creator or artist or builder. There is first a desire and then a plan, God gathers the necessary materials and begins the process of constructing them, then the result. Once you fully understand the nature of what God is this is much easier to conceptualize.

As for consolidating this, you can do it by answering one simple question. Can you show anything in nature that can be shown to fit your definition of process (not simply has been called a process by others, but can actually fit your definition of process), including being associated with an intelligence?

I already gave you some examples, I can associate them with intelligence by what they produce, the outcome. Evolution for example, just look in the mirror, wah-lah there's an intelligent, sentient being. That is the production of evolution, same can be said for all other living creatures. Look at the eco-system and how its designed and how it accommodates all living things, look at Earth, it has a light and heat source including the reflection of the moon so we're never in complete darkness. It contains water, food and all the necessary components that living things can flourish.

I mean for God sakes planets.....PLANETS, what is a planet? why would a planet create itself lol? a planet is a giant habitat for things to potentially live on, the way they are set into orbit so that gravitation may take effect....stars how they seed the universe continually, they provide heat, elements and matter as they are born and as they die. I could go on and on but these are things obviously associated with thought and intelligence.

Also you're again misusing the term 'real world' unless you don't think the formation of planets occurs in the real world? If you do then I would point out that we see can observe no intelligence in that process so your argument fails.

I'm using the term to distinguish our own world observations of productions and development and extending that premise to the universe to show you how processes are always associated with a mind or intelligence. You know, like that which takes place on the earth in regards to its inhabitants. I thought maybe you'd have picked up on that already. 

Actually only that made by humans can be shown to fit that description.

That's what I am referring to. At this point I have to wonder if you're just trolling me. Let me know when you catch up. This is beginning to fall into the categories of obnoxious and monotonous. When you want to move forward from what I wrote above let me know, I'm not wasting anymore time repeating myself. If you want create your own thread about it I may contribute. But at this time I think it's fair to say there's not much more to go over. 

#316
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@EtrnlVw

Of course it does silly, I have an answer and you don't. If someone asked us what is 2+2 and your answer was I don't know and mine was 4 who's answer is stronger?? just because you're not acknowledging my answer as a legit one means basically nothing.
That is pretty much the definition of an argument from ignorance. The answer 4 to the question what is the result of 2+2 is strong because it is correct and can be demonstrated to be so. If I have an answer or not is immaterial to its strength. To follow your analogy, if I answered with I don't know and you answered 5 would your answer be stronger? An argument is not made strong by the lack of strength or even the demonstrable inaccuracy of other arguments, it's made strong by its own merits. If I know how processes can initiate without an intelligence or not, if I know if it's even possible for processes to initiate without an intelligence or not, does absolutely nothing to validate your claim.

As for my not accepting your claim I don't suggest it means anything to its validity, I haven't even stated I believe it to be incorrect. The logical fallacies I have pointed out in your argument however do bring its validity into question, you haven't addressed any of them, which is your prerogative, but I was under the impression that we were considering your claims to do that we need to get to grip with the logic, see if it is sound or not and considering the fallacies I've presented (which you seem to be ignoring). I'd very much like to see how you address the fallacies I've presented, since resolving them is the only way to make it logical to conclude your conclusion is correct.

God creates and forms things just like any creator or artist or builder. There is first a desire and then a plan, God gathers the necessary materials and begins the process of constructing them, then the result. Once you fully understand the nature of what God is this is much easier to conceptualize.
I think you're getting ahead of yourself here. We're discussing your argument that processes develop the universe and that all processes are associated with a mind or intelligence. This claim doesn't seem to address either of those points it's simply another claim.

I already gave you some examples, I can associate them with intelligence by what they produce, the outcome. Evolution for example, just look in the mirror, wah-lah there's an intelligent, sentient being. That is the production of evolution, same can be said for all other living creatures. Look at the eco-system and how its designed and how it accommodates all living things, look at Earth, it has a light and heat source including the reflection of the moon so we're never in complete darkness. It contains water, food and all the necessary components that living things can flourish
So you can show that any of those outcomes were intended? If you can I would be very impressed I'll admit, so far the only arguments I've seen are arguments from ignorance and arguments from incredulity. I have yet to see any reason presented that these results are necessarily or must logically be the product of an intelligence, again how do you verify such necessity?

I mean for God sakes planets.....PLANETS, what is a planet? why would a planet create itself lol? a planet is a giant habitat for things to potentially live on, the way they are set into orbit so that gravitation may take effect....stars how they seed the universe continually, they provide heat, elements and matter as they are born and as they die. I could go on and on but these are things obviously associated with thought and intelligence.
This seems to start with a straw man. I believe I've already pointed out that certainly I and to my knowledge no one else is claiming planets form themselves.

Then we head nicely into an argument from incredulity, just because you can't see how it can be so doesn't mean it cannot be so. Then there's an argument from ignorance (you can't provide an answer so I win by default) Though it's somewhat interesting, I assume by why you mean for what purpose? If so I find myself wondering how we can determine purpose is necessary or present? If you mean by what cause then I would point out that you have already had a discussion on what causes planets to form, until purpose can be shown to be necessary then the how can reasonably be the why.

As for it being obvious that the things you listed are associated with an intelligence, can you present the arguments to show how you conclude this? Or do you mean it's obvious because you feel it should be this way?

I'm using the term to distinguish our own world observations of productions and development and extending that premise to the universe to show you how processes are always associated with a mind or intelligence. You know, like that which takes place on the earth in regards to its inhabitants. I thought maybe you'd have picked up on that already. 
So you don't mean the real world and concede that natural processes occur in the real world? And are instead referring to processes initiated by humans. So I would point out again, you have shown good, solid evidence for the claim that an intelligence can initiate processes.  Now and please address this as it's vital, how do you show that the fact an intelligence can initiate processes suggests in any logical way that an intelligence must initiate processes. This seems to be a Pars pro Toto Fallacy, meaning that you're assuming what is true for part (processes initiated by humans) is true for the whole (all processes in this case). This doesn't necessarily logically follow. Also, can you show the intelligence associated with the aging process? I (unfortunately) see that every day it seems, but I've yet to be able to see any intelligence associated with it.

That's what I am referring to. At this point I have to wonder if you're just trolling me. Let me know when you catch up. This is beginning to fall into the categories of obnoxious and monotonous.

My point, which you keep missing is that by the definition you provide the only processes that we know of are those made by humans. You assert that the universe is developed by processes. I have been asking that you show us one natural process that fits your definition of a process. If you can't then we have two options we can logically come to. One is that nothing in nature can currently be shown to be a process (using your definition, not necessarily the cambridge or webster dictionary definitions). Or we can conclude that nature does contain processes and your definition isn't suitable. This is important to your premises that A the universe is developed by processes. Since according to your last post we can agree that only that made by humans can be shown to  fit your definition of process this position can only be both true and fit your definition if you can either show something in nature that has verifiable intentionality. Or you wish to argue that something made by humans develops the universe (since you have made the point that  only things made by humans can be shown to fit your definition of process). Following from that your statement all processes are associated with a mind or intelligence either becomes a non sequitur (if you conclude that no processes were involved in the development of the universe as you define process) or you're argiung humans made the universe, which will lead to the discussion of how you could verify that. Personally I prefer the definitions that include something descriptive of what we observe in natural  processes, but that definition makes acceptance of your second premise (all processes are associated with a mind or intelligence). TLDR: How ever you spin , your two premises can't be shown to both be true unless you can verify that all natural processes can be shown to be associated with a mind or  intelligence.

Going forward perhaps you should try presenting premises and then discussing with me why you think they lead to a conclusion, complete with addressing my questions and the logical fallacies I point out. Then we might manage to get off the starting spot.
#317
Tyran_Orex
Tyran_Orex's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 12
0
0
0
Tyran_Orex's avatar
Tyran_Orex
0
0
0
-->
@EtrnlVw

At this point I have to wonder if you're just trolling me. Let me know when you catch up.......... This is beginning to fall into the categories of obnoxious and monotonous. ......But at this time I think it's fair to say there's not much more to go over. 
Let's just say that you have been well and truly cornered on a point of fact that you have no valid answer for.

The point was made:
The big difference is that you're claiming processes occur only through an intelligent source. What I am asking is how can you verify that? We see many things that you call processes in nature that lack any sign of intelligent involvement. On what grounds are you extending the premise?
The fact is that every single process of nature has found to have occurred through nothing more than the behaviour of nature. Behaviour is not created. 
For example, evil is a behaviour and that was not created, was it?
#318
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@EtrnlVw
In an effort to once again consolidate our discussion and keep it on point and ensure that we understand each other, I am going to make a final effort to address this discussion in a way that I hope will be clear to you and explain why I question your claims.

We began this with you saying accepting that that the universe is developed by processes and that processes are always associtated with a mind or intelligence.

My point of contention is that while you can argue that either of these positions is true depending on how we define them they become mutually exclusive unless you can show intelligence associated with those processes involved in developing the universe.

So far you have addressed this by pointing the world around us and suggesting that they are all associated with an intelligence.

I already gave you some examples, I can associate them with intelligence by what they produce, the outcome. Evolution for example, just look in the mirror, wah-lah there's an intelligent, sentient being. That is the production of evolution, same can be said for all other living creatures. Look at the eco-system and how its designed and how it accommodates all living things, look at Earth, it has a light and heat source including the reflection of the moon so we're never in complete darkness. It contains water, food and all the necessary components that living things can flourish.
The evolution of life is a clever choice since it is (albeit in a very round about way) possible to show it has an association with intelligence, though I ask why this suggests it was initiated by an intelligence? The same question applies to the other examples you have given. Ultimately if you simply deduce that the end result of natural processes leads to the conclusion that natural processes require an intelligence then I ask why? What is your reasoning and argumentation to get to that conclusion? This is the crux of your argument. So I ask (with every hope that you'll answer) why does any feature developed by natural processes show an intelligence was necessary?
#319
Tyrant_Rex
Tyrant_Rex's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 10
0
0
0
Tyrant_Rex's avatar
Tyrant_Rex
0
0
0
-->
@Mdh2000
This is the crux of your argument. So I ask (with every hope that you'll answer) why does any feature developed by natural processes show an intelligence was necessary?
Both I and A Troubled Man have asked the same question in this and other topics and Eternal VW knows full well that he has no rational answer, let alone an answer that is reasoned or valid.

I'm afraid that it is simply a characteristic of creationists who will not pull the needle out of the stuck groove of thinking that all this had to be created.

What they will not accept is the overwhelming evidence and the facts proving that life was anything but created and in fact, there is no purpose to life whatsoever.

The very premise that "life is too complex" is self-defeating and doomed to failure since the creator of life would have to be even more complex and would have to have been created.
#320
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
In an effort to once again consolidate our discussion and keep it on point and ensure that we understand each other, I am going to make a final effort to address this discussion in a way that I hope will be clear to you and explain why I question your claims.
We began this with you saying accepting that that the universe is developed by processes and that processes are always associtated with a mind or intelligence.

My point of contention is that while you can argue that either of these positions is true depending on how we define them they become mutually exclusive unless you can show intelligence associated with those processes involved in developing the universe.

First of all the definitions themselves are irrelevant to the conclusion, I was just using the definitions to show what I mean by a process. The definitions aren't what is validating the argument, it's the rationale that's supporting the argument. I'm showing that intelligence was involved by asking you to consider the intelligence by what they produce, and that it's silly to accept that processes occur all by themselves. I reinforced that idea by correlating what we know about processes in our daily observations.

If you don't think there is any rationale connected with processes being associated with intelligence then we have to agree to disagree, to me it is blatantly obvious but I can't make you believe that if you don't want to. I don't believe that any processes could just occur, to me, all the things we know of that are associated with processes and development are associated with an agent and again, I'm extending that premise to the universe and its processes. This is to give you something to think about in terms of a Creator, rather than atheism. In other words I'm trying to make sense of it for you, and show you how what you know about the universe is compatible with a Creator.

So far you have addressed this by pointing the world around us and suggesting that they are all associated with an intelligence.

Yes, I'm correlating my premise with what we know about development and processes so you know there is evidence and demonstration in what I'm claiming. That it is a backed up proposition.

The evolution of life is a clever choice since it is (albeit in a very round about way) possible to show it has an association with intelligence, though I ask why this suggests it was initiated by an intelligence?

You just answered that, it is that simple. It doesn't need a complicated answer this is simply common sense. Truth is simplistic and logic doesn't need to be complex.....if it is logical to believe that a process like evolution can be connected with an intelligent Agent then you have good reason to consider it period. If I'm to show you there is a Creator involved in the universe my premise has to be concise and solid and I think we are in that ballpark. Now, it's just a matter of getting your attention and switching your perspective around, the premise itself is already logical and reasonable.


The same question applies to the other examples you have given. Ultimately if you simply deduce that the end result of natural processes leads to the conclusion that natural processes require an intelligence then I ask why? What is your reasoning and argumentation to get to that conclusion? This is the crux of your argument.

Well if I'm to give you hope about a Creator or a God, then I have to show that it is worth considering. I have to show why creation is superior to your current belief or worldview. So the very proposition itself is to get you to look at the obvious, and hopefully can give you a platform worth pondering. Again, this is all obvious to me, since evolution itself creates intelligence how does it do that?
My reasoning has always been simple, intelligence doesn't produce itself into existence from nothing or from dormant material, in order for a process to occur something has to arrange and get that process going. The processes that occur in the universe have definitive concise results producing and definitive desired outcomes and the other half of my premise is to ask you how could that happen from any inanimate force? do you believe a stack of bricks could construct a building by themselves? or that a computer could wire itself? or that a recipe could bake itself? and do you really believe that materials over millions of years could produce intelligent sentient creatures all by themselves?

So I ask (with every hope that you'll answer) why does any feature developed by natural processes show an intelligence was necessary?

I've been answering this along time now, the rationale behind it is within pages of this very thread. TBH I don't know how to make it any clearer, sometimes you seem to get it and then you just ask the question again as if you never got it lol. You seem willing to consider it I just don't know why you want me to keep repeating it.
Basically I'm saying that I don't believe that those processes could occur naturally, without an intelligent source because I understand that inanimate forces don't generate intelligent products, that speaks for itself albeit it is my opinion. I think that in order for you to accept that they do, you have to show how and why that could happen (counterevidence), your answer is that "you don't know" and that alone should help you in this discussion. I'm using your own assumption that they do occur all by themselves against you, by having you consider the alternative. Having you consider a superior premise that they occur through an intelligent Source, otherwise there would be no process, this universe would not exist without God.

I think that it is necessary that there be an agent if a process were to occur because it takes intelligence to generate or create anything, there has to be an intelligent factor to figure it out and then to implement it put the materials together and then begin to construct, again it's just good ole commonsense there's nothing too complicated about it. The alternative would be to believe that something could build itself into existence, that something inanimate could begin a process of development and I'm trying to show you that to accept that is absurd.


#321
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Tyrant_Rex
Both I and A Troubled Man have asked the same question in this and other topics and Eternal VW knows full well that he has no rational answer,

Lol number one you aren't a valid member, two... don't butt into my discussions with other valid members and three I'll address you as needed. I've been more than willing to address your nonsense over the years, only to be met with bigotry and anger. You don't ask questions, you come to this subject with preconceived ideas and some grudge you have about religion. Grow up. If you want a mature discussion you have failed big time, now go to another forum and practice your behavior and maybe somewhere down the line we could have a grown up chat. 
#322
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
I apologize I do all my editing and spell checks after I post for whatever reason lol, so if something changes after you've read it that's why. I should probably get into the habit of spell checking before I post...
#323
Tyrant_Rex
Tyrant_Rex's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 10
0
0
0
Tyrant_Rex's avatar
Tyrant_Rex
0
0
0
-->
@EtrnlVw
Lol number one you aren't a valid member, two... don't butt into my discussions with other valid members and three I'll address you as needed. I've been more than willing to address your nonsense over the years, only to be met with bigotry and anger. You don't ask questions, you come to this subject with preconceived ideas and some grudge you have about religion. Grow up. If you want a mature discussion you have failed big time, now go to another forum and practice your behavior and maybe somewhere down the line we could have a grown up chat. 
I am a valid member and I have never displayed bigotry and this is an open forum.

I think what is of concern is the type of behaviour that you erroneously accuse others of is exactly what you have just done here.

There are three others in this forum who have quite legitimately questioned your habit of deceptively dodging issues.

I would suggest that you make an attempt to moderating your own behaviour and refrain from making vitriolic slurs and personal attacks on others.
#324
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
First of all the definitions themselves are irrelevant to the conclusion, I was just using the definitions to show what I mean by a process. The definitions aren't what is validating the argument, it's the rationale that's supporting the argument. I'm showing that intelligence was involved by asking you to consider the intelligence by what they produce, and that it's silly to accept that processes occur all by themselves. I reinforced that idea by correlating what we know about processes in our daily observations.
Except you haven't addressed where we can observe the intelligence in the aging process or the processes that allow plants or animals to grow, or decomposition or heat transference or... I think we can stop there for now. In the hope of moving on and since the definition doesn't matter, we can say I accept your definition of process for the purposes of this discussion as long as you agree not to uae the term process for anything you can't verify fits your definition. Though I will require one clarification, when you say 

Processes would include anything undergone that would bring about an end result
Do you mean an intended end result?

If you don't think there is any rationale connected with processes being associated with intelligence then we have to agree to disagree, to me it is blatantly obvious but I can't make you believe that if you don't want to. I don't believe that any processes could just occur, to me, all the things we know of that are associated with processes and development are associated with an agent and again, I'm extending that premise to the universe and its processes. This is to give you something to think about in terms of a Creator, rather than atheism. In other words I'm trying to make sense of it for you, and show you how what you know about the universe is compatible with a Creator
It's not that I don't think there's any, i just don't think that any has been presented. The issue is that there's the no true scotsman that you don't factor in natural processes that we see every day, such as heat transference, aging growth, heat transference and so on and so on. My question to you has been why because intelligent beings can initiate processes  does it follow all processes must be initiated by intelligence? What I put to you is that because A can initiate B doesn't mean only A can initiate B, perhaps there's a C or D that can as well. Or perhaps we lack enough information to formulate any reliably accurate idea about B might be initiated.

I generally believe if an answer is that it's obvious and upon critical consideration I'm unable to explain the reason it's obvious then it's time to begin giving it critical reevaluation, or take view it as an opinion.

Well if I'm to give you hope about a Creator or a God, then I have to show that it is worth considering. I have to show why creation is superior to your current belief or worldview. So the very proposition itself is to get you to look at the obvious, and hopefully can give you a platform ponder. Again, this is all obvious to me, since evolution itself creates intelligence how does it do that?
I don't know, but then I'm not a biologist, but again if I know or not is immaterial to the validity of your claim. 2+2=5 isn't made valid if i know the answer or not.

I've been answering this along time now, the rationale behind it is within pages of this very thread. TBH I don't know how to make it any clearer, sometimes you seem to get and then you just ask the question again as if you never got it lol. You seem willing to consider it I just don't know why you want me to keep repeating it.
The reason it seems to be that I understand your argument is that I believe I do. The reason that I keep asking that you answer my question is because you haven't directly. You seem to equate the lack of a counter proposition as evidence for your proposition, which isn't logically the case, that I can't answer a question doesn't make any other answer more or less valid. That's an argument from ignorance. The question keeps getting asked because the question is still valid and unresolved.

Basically I'm saying that I don't believe that those processes could occur naturally, without an intelligent source because I understand that inanimate forces don't generate intelligent products, that speaks for itself albeit it is my opinion.
If by intelligent products you mean things created by an intelligence then of course you are right, but then in the context of this discussion it's also circular.  I would ask again how we verify anything that exists in nature was intended? If you mean processes created intelligence, then I ask why does intelligence need to stem from intelligence? What is the reasoning to conclude this.

I think that in order for you to accept that, you have to show how and why that could happen, your answer is that "you don't know" and that alone should help you in this discussion. I'm using your own assumption that they do occur all by themselves against you, by having you consider the alternative.
I think this is part of our problem. You are trying to attack an assumption I don't hold. You can't make your premise appealing by dismissing others, you can only do so by showing it to be supported by logically sound evidence. For example, explaining why the fact processes can be initiated by intelligences suggests they must be would be a good first step or showing where the intelligence is in the natural processes we observe daily.

Having you consider a superior premise that they occur through an intelligent Source, otherwise there would be no process, this universe would not exist without God
What we have here is a consideration of your premise. As of yet I'm seeing a number of logical fallacies (I've noted them in past posts, but can list them and their contexts again in a post if you'd like?), I have yet to see anything superior to the proposition that we lack the means to come to conclusion that's logically sound and verifiable.

I think that it is necessary that there be an agent if a process were to occur because it takes intelligence to generate or create anything, there has to be an intelligent factor to figure it out and then to implement it put the materials together and then begin to construct, again it's just good ole commonsense there's nothing too complicated about it
My question is can you verify your premise that it takes an intelligence to generate or create anything? Can you back this up with logic and supporting evidence or is it just good ole fashioned common sense (which we know from experience can be wrong)?

The alternative would be to believe that something could build itself into existence, that something inanimate could begin a process of development and I'm trying to show you that to accept that is absurd.
This is almost disingenuous at this point to my knowledge no one here is claiming something came from nothing, so that's a straw man. The rest is an argument from absurdity.

I propose rather than simply state opinions  we have a frank discussion without any presuppositions in regard to  what's absurd and what isn't and establish that through reason and evidence and see where that takes us with some applied critical thinking?
#325
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
You just answered that, it is that simple. It doesn't need a complicated answer this is simply common sense. Truth is simplistic and logic doesn't need to be complex.....if it is logical to believe that a process like evolution can be connected with an intelligent Agent then you have good reason to consider it period. If I'm to show you there is a Creator involved in the universe my premise has to be concise and solid and I think we are in that ballpark. Now, it's just a matter of getting your attention and switching your perspective around, the premise itself is already logical and 
Do you have a logical argument for why intelligence can't originate from an unintelligent sorce? Or do you aasume it based on perceived common sense? You are right however that claims should be considered. That is why am considering your claim. You seem to be forgetting the still unaddressed argument from incredulity (you can't believe it's not possible so it's not possible), the argument from ignorance (you can't provide an answer so my answer should be taken as valid) and the fact that we observe processes in nature that so far can't be shown to be initiated by an intelligence. My question had no answer in it. It stands why does evolution suggest an intelligence be involved. I haven't been presented with any reason it does.

My issue is unsupported common sense is simply assumption. That isn't a solid basis in my opinion for claims of truth.

#326
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Tyrant_Rex
I am a valid member

No you aren't, you're a banned multi accounter with no respect for the topics at hand. You keep getting banned because you are an angry bigot, you're not here for discussion but preaching. Now get lost. 
#327
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
Do you have a logical argument for why intelligence can't originate from an unintelligent sorce?

Yes, it's nonsensical. Intelligence can't just spontaneously create itself unless you believe in magic, do you not see the value in that assessment? why do you think IT CAN, is the appropriate question. You want me to give you some explanation outside of commonsense when in fact you should be asking yourself how can it. It's self-explanatory. 

Or do you aasume it based on perceived common sense?

You can label it an assumption, but yes I believe it is common sense.

the fact that we observe processes in nature that so far can't be shown to be initiated by an intelligence.

That is an assumption, we've been over that already. The acceptance that the processes in nature occurring all by themselves is materialism, which is a worldview meaning it's derived from your own interpretation. Science doesn't claim that, it just shows how the processes work, not why they exist or why they even occur at all. 

My question had no answer in it. It stands why does evolution suggest an intelligence be involved. I haven't been presented with any reason it does.

It's commonsense. I keep pointing that out but that's what it is. If you disagree then my whole premise is probably not going to resonate with you. I tell you look at the results, it produces intelligence.....the very process itself aims to produce what would be the product of forethought, you so far seem content in accepting that an intelligent production occurred all on its own. That's the absurdity of it, nothing occurs all by itself, certainly not processes that produce intelligent results, you may call it an assumption but at least it's commonsense. 

My issue is unsupported common sense is simply assumption. That isn't a solid basis in my opinion for claims of truth.

Okay, I respect your opinion. But, if we don't use common sense to support a conclusion what should we begin with?

#328
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
Except you haven't addressed where we can observe the intelligence in the aging process

Matter is intended to have a lifespan, where our experience of time is linear, that is the nature of matter it isn't eternal. So you won't find perfection really in creation, meaning things that last forever. The physical world will always be built for decomposing, it's built with material that doesn't last. This is just supposed to be a stepping stone, however the soul itself is eternal it moves forward as the physical body passes.

Do you mean an intended end result?

Yes, an intended or desired outcome.

It's not that I don't think there's any, i just don't think that any has been presented. The issue is that there's the no true scotsman that you don't factor in natural processes that we see every day, such as heat transference

Don't forget there are processes and there are effects, not all effects are the direct result of intelligence but the results of intelligent processes. So just because I say there must be intelligence for processes to occur doesn't necessarily mean everything we see take place is directed, for example even though the sun was created through a process, if you were to get burned from getting to close that's just an effect. Heat transference is an indirect process, meaning an effect having a cause.

My question to you has been why because intelligent beings can initiate processes  does it follow all processes must be initiated by intelligence?

Why would you disrupt the flow of logic here from "we know intelligent beings can initiate a process" to now "no being is needed to initiate a process"? you have to follow the logic through, unless you intend to make the fallacy of special pleading... why make an exception for one? again you are content with accepting that processes occur all by themselves because of a chosen worldview, materialism, and not because it's rational. 

What I put to you is that because A can initiate B doesn't mean only A can initiate B, perhaps there's a C or D that can as well. Or perhaps we lack enough information to formulate any reliably accurate idea about B might be initiated.

That's called special pleading. You're making an exception for the other.

I generally believe if an answer is that it's obvious and upon critical consideration I'm unable to explain the reason it's obvious then it's time to begin giving it critical reevaluation, or take view it as an opinion.

But you can't explain your premise, you only have said my premise has no explanation yet when I ask you how processes occur on their own you say you don't know. Lol, at least I have an answer for it. Processes occur because of an intelligent agent always, there is no exception to that rule because processes occurring all by themselves is an absurdity. 

#329
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
I don't know, but then I'm not a biologist, but again if I know or not is immaterial to the validity of your claim. 2+2=5 isn't made valid if i know the answer or not.

If you don't know why processes occur or how they could ever generate themselves and I know that processes only occur through an agent my position is superior, how can you not see that? remember, if we were asked what is 2+2 and you said you don't know and I said 4, I have the superior calculation. So, no, it's not immaterial to my premise, you have no answer or reason to accept what you have accepted. I do have a reason and an answer for the premise I have accepted.

The reason it seems to be that I understand your argument is that I believe I do. The reason that I keep asking that you answer my question is because you haven't directly. You seem to equate the lack of a counter proposition as evidence for your proposition, which isn't logically the case, that I can't answer a question doesn't make any other answer more or less valid. That's an argument from ignorance. The question keeps getting asked because the question is still valid and unresolved.

Read above.

If by intelligent products you mean things created by an intelligence then of course you are right, but then in the context of this discussion it's also circular.  I would ask again how we verify anything that exists in nature was intended? If you mean processes created intelligence, then I ask why does intelligence need to stem from intelligence? What is the reasoning to conclude this.

Already went over that.

I think this is part of our problem. You are trying to attack an assumption I don't hold. You can't make your premise appealing by dismissing others, you can only do so by showing it to be supported by logically sound evidence. For example, explaining why the fact processes can be initiated by intelligences suggests they must be would be a good first step or showing where the intelligence is in the natural processes we observe daily.

I'm not dismissing others, I'm using your weak premise and assumption to appeal to a better proposition. You don't know why things occur, to answer that question means you would have to accept an absurd explanation, that they just occur for no reason all by themselves, when we can see very clearly that there is an intended outcome in these processes, as if they were intelligent. Of course they aren't, they are materials used by an intelligent Agent to create desired products.

What we have here is a consideration of your premise. As of yet I'm seeing a number of logical fallacies (I've noted them in past posts, but can list them and their contexts again in a post if you'd like?), I have yet to see anything superior to the proposition that we lack the means to come to conclusion that's logically sound and verifiable.

So-called fallacies just give you a way of avoiding the fact at hand, stop saying I'm using fallacies when my premise is very clear and simple. It's a waste of space and time. The reason why my premise is superior, is because it follows the logic through and it's common sense, as opposed to "I don't know". That's like apples and oranges, a non-answer is not superior to an answer.

My question is can you verify your premise that it takes an intelligence to generate or create anything? Can you back this up with logic and supporting evidence or is it just good ole fashioned common sense (which we know from experience can be wrong)?

I have been verifying it by giving you examples of production as associated with intelligence, and by appealing to your rational mind that things can't just produce themselves. Why you believe they can is beyond me, especially when you say you don't know why. I mean I don't really understand why you wouldn't think my premise is not superior unless you believe in magic. That things can create themselves.
Good ole common sense is how we establish the validity of a claim or lack thereof. We need common sense to reach a logical conclusion, then we move forward. 

This is almost disingenuous at this point to my knowledge no one here is claiming something came from nothing, so that's a straw man. The rest is an argument from absurdity.

That's basically what your premise is, somehow processes gathered inanimate materials and began producing themselves, eventually into intelligent creatures. If that process DIDN'T come from nothing, then why and where did it come from?

I propose rather than simply state opinions  we have a frank discussion without any presuppositions in regard to  what's absurd and what isn't and establish that through reason and evidence and see where that takes us with some applied critical thinking?

Okay.

#330
Tyrant_Rex
Tyrant_Rex's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 10
0
0
0
Tyrant_Rex's avatar
Tyrant_Rex
0
0
0
-->
@EtrnlVw
No you aren't, you're a banned multi accounter with no respect for the topics at hand. You keep getting banned because you are an angry bigot, you're not here for discussion but preaching. Now get lost. 
I'm a human being and you do yourself no favour by continuing in this fashion.