A challenge to theists. Can you be honest.

however he doesnt recall anything. 

was for Theists to be honest and admit that they had no actual proof of their chosen god

Theists only assume. They do not prove.

What you explain is delusion.

The real world, our day to day observations. Perhaps you can share with me processes that occur all by themselves? as far as I can tell processes are associated with minds (intelligence) involved. 

Then we could point to gravitation.

Heat transference... Probably a very long list of others. Now, I don't assert that if no intelligence can be observed in those processes then no intelligence is present,

however if no intelligence can be shown then how do you support the statement that 'all processes must be associated with an intelligence or mind'?

But, I'm arguing that gravitation is an aspect of creation. That was the whole point behind my proposition. In other words no "natural" processes or phenomenon would occur without an intelligence behind that process. 

My question is that can you show intention in gravity or heat transference? The reason I specifically addressed the definition for process 'a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner'

Is because it's a definition that doesn't require an intelligence or mind for the process.

Why is it absurd or illogical?

Why must one make either assumption?

It seems to me that if we have no way to determine if many of the processes we observe have or require a process

then the logical conclusion barring further evidence is that it's unknown if they do or must. Do you have evidence that they require an intelligence?

I think I get what you're saying here. It's not the actual process that has an intelligence, the process itself when created was a process created by an intelligence. Is that correct?

For example, the release of a photon is a natural process, say that whenever an electron transitions to a lower energy level, but what you're saying is that although the release of photons is a natural process, the process of photons being released was originally designed and implemented by an intelligence and that once implemented, it became a natural process?

Pretty much, the alternative is to accept that processes occur by themselves from inanimate forces. 

The manipulations of elements and energy certainly indicate intelligence by what they produce.

I think that the forces that have been discovered appear to be inanimate. I use the example of the photon, when it is absorbed, an electron transitions to a higher energy level, but then is released again causing the electron to transition back to it's gauge energy level. This process is completely random and often serves no purpose.

Take for example the process of plate tectonics. This process exists on Earth where there is life but doesn't exist on other planets where there is no life. I won't go into the process itself other than to say that the process can be harmful and deadly to humans when it occurs causing earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis that we know injures and kills a great number of humans. Since the process does not occur on other planets with no life, it's quite the question as to why such a process would exist on Earth, if indeed the process were directed by an intelligence.

I think that the forces that have been discovered appear to be inanimate.

Not everything has to have purpose for creation to be true. Often times things will certainly appear to be random or have no real purpose especially when you get down to the subatomic and nanopartical levels, things get weird. That is the nature of playing with elements. The larger picture, the structuring of the world and all the processes that are involved should be blatantly obvious. What you should be considering is how the very nature of energy operates in creation, with desired outcomes, why it produces intelligence.....and questioning how the larger picture could be producing those processes.

I'm going to say there's processes and there are effects, effects are not always the desired outcome of a process. On the larger picture I would say mountains being formed are a process in that it's the desired outcome, and that involves the use of tectonic plates. Yes, it's quite dangerous but for the most part many are untouched by it and many are able to observe their beauty without fear. But then again the whole idea of a planet and its functions are quite dangerous, God is playing with mega blocks lol when humans are quite tiny and frail, it's the nature of the game I suppose. In the long run, if a human were to lose their physical body they just move to another part of creation. I doubt the perception of God is limited by tragedies that occur on one planet.

I disagree with that assessment and quite frankly seems somewhat small minded, or better put short sighted. But I appreciate that opinion, at least you're being polite and engaging on a mature level. From my perspective it seems quite the opposite. The forces themselves of course are inanimate, I'm not arguing the forces are intelligent it's my position they are used by an intelligent Source. That's obvious when you step back and see what they produce. We could argue that energy itself appears to be intelligent but it's more accurate to say it operates as intelligence. Energy though is a by-product of conscious activity, it co-exists with the conscious Reality of God, it's what generates energy and why it even exists. This energy in turn is manipulated to manifest form in creation through processes.

First of all let's back up a minute and be more precise about what I mean by processes. I wouldn't categorize gravitation as a process by itself, that would be more of an effect. However a desired effect or outcome due to an intelligent process. What I mean by processes are developments, arrangements, formations, evolution, the products of energy ect ect. So we have to look specifically at what causes gravity to see the intelligence or source behind it. And what I mean by development and arrangements are like stars, planets, galaxies, solar systems, planetary orbit, habitations, embodiments ect ect..

Gravitational force or rotational gravity for example is produced by the centrifugal force in a rotating frame of reference and mass of that object. Why does that occur at all? why do you see the birth and death of a star, the formation of a planet, arrangement of galaxies and solar systems with light and heat sources, the development of habitations for life and embodiments? why does energy operate as an intelligent force? these are all desired outcomes manufactured through intelligent processes. My argument resides on the fact that processes are associated with minds or intelligence, in other words what you observe taking place in the universe is a direct result of intelligence and that would be an obvious deduction. 

Because you're accepting that processes occur without an intelligent source, the fact you don't even see that is confusing. Think about what you just asked.....processes occurring by themselves, inanimate forces producing intelligent processes without any source. You seem content to accept that intelligent processes generate themselves. 

That's usually how logic is used, correlation and deduction. 

Huh? we do have a way do determine what I'm saying, that's called logic, common sense and correlation.

Yes, which is why I asked you to show me where you observe in the real world where processes occur by themselves. Evidence is defined as that which indicates a proposition true, processes are associated with intelligence and that's a pretty good indicator. Having said that, we're only moving forward from a logical conclusion, that's not the only supporting factor that God exists.

That's one of the reasons why I chose plate tectonics as it is a process that largely determines our living environment on Earth. I would say that it is indeed part of a larger picture and the reason why I questioned it as a process driven by an intelligence. The only thing that appears to drive it is the flow of the Earths mantle, which was left over from when the entire Earth was molten, and it appears inanimate and random.

I suppose that if an intelligence were driving the plate tectonics process, it doesn't seem like it well thought out considering how much harm it causes humans and other life on Earth. I would think there would be a much better process to create mountains if that was the desired outcome, one that would do no harm over the long run. I wonder why that intelligence wouldn't just create the mountains prior to creating life? Unfortunately, there wasn't anything in Genesis to describe this other than making the land appear.

Well, you certainly do have an interesting personal philosophy of how things work, sorry if I don't see anything obvious about it. I see energy operating entirely on an inanimate and random level, but I base this on the fact that there are a lot of events that have happened and will happen that make no sense if indeed an intelligence was driving it.

Can you demonstrate that anything in the real world is both 'a desired effect or outcome due to an intelligent process' that wasn't initiated by a human?

Can you show any such processes exist? To say 'we call them processes so they must have an intelligent origin because all processes have intelligent origins' seems a semantic argument, it also seems to be close to begging the question.

If there is no verifiable answer then you've got an argument from ignorance. As for energy acting as an 'intelligent force' can you explain how you know what differences would occur between energy acting as an 'intelligent force' and energy acting as an unintelligent force and how you confirm this?

My position is perfectly valid if none of these things can be verified, it stands logically that without being able to verify the existence or non-existence of an intelligence in the origins of the universe such an intelligent involvement is an unknown. Where is the reasoning that makes the existence of such an intelligence more logical?

Your argument is begging the question. You state: 'If you take into consideration that the universe is developed through processes and processes are only ever associated with intelligence or mind then you're half way there already.'

This is assuming the conclusion in the premise due to your definition of 'process' shoehorning in the necessity of intelligence. How do you verify the intelligence involved in the origins of the universe? It's a semantic twist to include your conclusion in your premise.

How would you determine an intelligent force from an unintelligent force? How did you determine that what you call the processes the developed the universe fit your definition of process (namely have an association with an intelligence)?

I'm curious what would you call a process that wasn't developed by a human?

I have never assumed or asked how inanimate forces produced intelligent processes without any source, that isn't my question at all.

 I ask how you can show that there is intelligence in anything not initiated by humans or animals

, it would be irrational if I were to be using your definition of process which requires it involve an intelligence, I have already very clearly specified that's not the definition I was using, I don't posit intelligence at any point in the natural forces interactions.

So far I haven't seen any logically sound argument presented that suggests we can know that an intelligence created the universe. You have proposed that since it began by processes and that all processes are associated with minds or intelligence it stands to reason the universe must have been formed by an intelligence. Yet unless you can show these 'processes' and that they fit your definition of processes (namely that they are associated with a mind or intelligence), then either we can expand your definition, use a term other than process for them or show that they are in fact associated with a mind/intelligence then your argument is empty, it at best says nothing at worst begs the question.

This again hits on that equivocation fallacy you like so much. Again let us be clear that the definition I use for processes does not necessarily require them to be the product of intelligence (it was actually one of the definitions for process that you presented). With that in mind I would ask when you have ever been able to verify anything not initiated by a human (and to be fair lets include animals) that we can verify was initiated by an intelligence. Again, what would you call a process that wasn't initiated by a human or animal? How do you determine that it was the product of an intelligence?

That's the whole point I was making by asking you to show me where processes occur without intelligence, or a human in this case. Every time we see a process occur in the real world it's because of a human or an intelligent factor, things don't just produce themsleves. Extend that same demonstration to the universe as a whole, every time we see a "natural" process in the universe we can conclude there was first intelligence, AKA God. That's the argument I've been making.

Lol yet you just confirmed above that a human is needed for a desired outcome. Unless of course I misread you. I'm taking that same basic premise of logic and extending it to the processes we observe in the universe and what they produce. In this case not a human, but God.

I'm saying the answer is obvious, unintelligent forces don't create or generate processes with a desired end, or for that matter produce anything at all. That's an absurdity, it's also my opinion but it's an opinion from common sense. Label whatever you like.

If a proposition is more logical than the other proposition (which is what I'm trying to get you to consider) than we have a platform to work from. Basically I'm trying to get you to consider creation as a platform by first getting you to consider the obvious. Then you may have some reason and logic to accept creation as a possibility.

We verify it by considering that processes don't generate themselves from inanimate forces. That's our starting point, I'm attempting to build strength in the case for God's existence as seen in creation. It's not proof of course, we are just exploring logic and common sense to build a case that is convincing.

Again that was the whole point, don't see how you're missing it. I'm asking you to extend that same premise to the point I've been making. What do you call a process that wasn't developed by an intelligence source? my answer is that it doesn't happen, therefore the God hypothesis is a valid one. That's the foundation to this case we are building.

I'm going to split this posts so it doesn't get too messy, hopefully after we get on the same page we can consolidate all of this.

There could be several reasons why there is movement beneath the Earth (perhaps google it), but to avoid focusing on plate tectonics alone that's not really what I'm referring to as processes in that it specifically shows there to be a Creator. I gave you some examples previously, perhaps you could address some of those things. I'm not making the assumption I know why every process was generated, I'm simply pointing out that the larger picture...being the whole of what we observe is pretty straight forward. There seems to be an obvious pattern of processes that achieve a desired ends and that doesn't just happen all by itself, meaning to me at least it is obvious there is an intelligent force at work. 

Just because there is movement beneath the Earth does not necessarily mean God is driving it specifically (like physically moving the plates lol), but the reason there is movement at all is because of a prior cause (which was generated due to forming this planet in a desired fashion).....like I said there are causes and there are effects, processes and then effects. But, it seems to me that mountains are an aspect of what makes the earth beautiful and while there may be several reasons why movement beneath the Earth is needed (like heat for example).....I would think though that God surely wanted mountains in the grand scheme of things as also Earth is a planet God wanted movement. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget

Look, we can nitpick all day at what we believe is not necessary but to me that's just avoiding the point I'm making. I'm asking you to step back and look at the whole picture, if you wish to zoom in on the smaller details you might lose sight of what I want you to look at. My main point being, that processes don't occur all by themselves and produce things that have an intelligent outcome. Sure, there's going to be smaller details that make us scratch our heads but remember the scale at what we are dealing with. Not everything is going to appear to be perfect, from the earth's point of view maybe we are in the way, from our point of view maybe plate tectonics are in the way, maybe from the ants point of view everything is just too large lol, on and on we go...perceptions are a dime a dozen and that's the nature of contrast and duality. In the larger picture God figured out some pretty cool ways to make it all work for the most part.

I appreciate that  but how can you say that looking at what energy produces though? isolating itself to create forms...it is the very force that drives pretty much everything, it creates all kinds of processes including creatures that are conscious and sentient...I mean come on. Look at our own solar system and the arrangement involved, heat and light sources, a planet that is a gigantic habitat for all kinds of life. If you focus in on micro scale stuff you're going to miss the larger outcome. Kind of like if you were to observe a recipe and decided to focus on only the measurement of flour, salt, sugar or any one those ingredients and refused to look at the end result of a magnificent pie....a pancake and all it's glory after just a few processes came together lol. I guess I would want you to look at the end product and not the ingredients to see what I mean by a desired end product.

Having said that I think the hand of God can surely be seen in the ingredients but it's not always as obvious.

That's the question I'm asking you to ask yourself to come to a logical conclusion.

Bingo, then you understand the argument I'm making for God??

Again I'm not saying the definition REQUIRES intelligence, I'm saying that processes don't OCCUR without intelligence, you confirmed that point over and over. You're assuming that natural forces (unintelligent) are able to generate intelligent processes, I'm trying to get you to consider that it is not a valid proposition. For there to be a process, there needs to be an intelligent source.

You're asking and answering your own question all in one paragraph lol. Come on now, let's get on the same page and consolidate this. Can we start from the platform that in order for there to be a process there needs to be an intelligent source? you agree that no process can take place without a human, why do you get all bent out of shape when I say no process in the universe can happen without a Creator? it's the SAME premise you keep making yourself!

I understand what you're saying. From a scientific perspective, any process, cause or effect can often be explained by the physical or chemical composition, depending on what we refer, whether a force, particle or object, as being something that does indeed act on itself without any guiding hand. If you wanted to focus any given process or cause, it's fairly easy to research it and see that the reasons for it acting as it does are explained through natural means. To say an intelligence was at work would be difficult to show in any of these processes or causes.

Thank you for providing the link. We can see from the information there that the processes, causes and effects are based on natural, random events driven entirely by the physical and chemical compositions I referred to earlier. By themselves acting on each other do we find the outcomes of mountains and other such terrains created by the plates moving on the mantle.

Again, from the perspective of science and the explanations of how the Earth was formed and it's terrain shows that it all did occur entirely on its own based on the physical and chemical compositions of the Earth itself and the molten interior that causes plate tectonics. If you think they did not happen on their own, you'd probably need to provide good reasoning and further explanations showing demonstrably that they didn't happen on their own. I'm not saying one way or the other that God had something to do with it, but I think if that was claimed, some explanations would be in order.

Again, I understand what you're saying, but there are very good explanations based on evidence for solar and planetary formation, usually first with electromagnetic radiation and then with gravity being the main forces in building both solar systems, the planets and even the sun (stars). If you say the hand of God can be seen in any of those formations, perhaps you can explain how and where they occur? I would very interested in hearing those explanations. Thanks.

Yes science is in the business of explaining how things work, but that does not necessitate that is why they operate. Since my claim is that God is using the elements and forces to generate processes, it may appear that these forces or elements act upon themselves but that's because God eludes what we can physically observe however, the processes themselves are the indication, they indicate intelligence. If I can get you to see the intelligence behind what they produce then I have a chance to get you to consider God as that intelligent Source.

This is just to get us considering there might be a Creator and then we move forward. In other words I would want you to consider that Theism is not something that is just about some absurd beliefs, there is good reason to accept God exists. We start by examining the nature of the processes within the universe. You're free to accept that they operate alone but I'm offering what I see as a superior proposition.

I honesty don't think it's that difficult to show, if I can get you to look at the final products and question how inanimate forces could ever produce anything. Again, we can see and observe how they work, but why are they doing that?

My reasoning is that planets don't just create themselves, and surely not in positions where they receive heat and light sources...my reasoning behind that is I don't believe processes can occur from nothing, and then produce things that appear intelligently in order. I don't believe evolution for example has the ability on its own to produce creatures of sentience and intelligence all by itself, I see God as the prime mover. This is pure common sense I'm appealing to. I know we can observe the processes taking place but again, I'm appealing to your rational mind that God generates them. God manipulates the elements and energy to create form within the universe, the formation of stars, solar systems and planets....brings about processes to manifest things into existence. It might seem a futile thing for me to do but I'm trying to switch your perspective.

We can agree to disagree here but if I have any chance at all in this discussion it's that I want you to consider one proposition superior to the other.

Formations is the key word I would want you to focus on. That's a big key factor IMO, how can a formation happen without a formER. I'm not asking how they form, I'm asking why they form. Why would anything form in the first place? you say electromagnetic radiation and gravity being the main forces building solar systems and I say God is using those tools to form solar systems. Look at the order in which things occur, they fit perfectly in with the process of a Creator...birth of stars (light and heat sources), displacement of galaxies, arrangement of solar systems, formation of planets, development of environments and ecosystems, food sources and then the evolution of embodiment. I mean to me it is very obvious this was prepared and thought out. My question is how could you accept it occurred by itself through inanimate substances? I say you're accepting (believing) that they occur by themselves.

But, I'm arguing that gravitation is an aspect of creation. That was the whole point behind my proposition. In other words no "natural" processes or phenomenon would occur without an intelligence behind that process

I think the key to your claim would be to explain that intelligence, where it lies within the creation and how it created. For example, we can look at a commercial airliner and see a design, a blueprint showing all the tens of thousands of components, their purpose, an explanation and process of how it all fits together. In that, one can see an intelligence in the crafting of that aircraft. If you can provide the same kind of detailed explanation for God, I would be more than willing to consider.

I do indeed question those process, but since they all have very good detailed explanations based on observable evidence and natural processes that drive them, I am forced to accept the answers as valid. If you say it's not difficult to show, then please do show those detailed explanations and how the evidence and processes fit with them?

I think you're right that planets don't really create themselves, but bear with me and I'll offer something to consider. In space, picture a massive cloud of dust, particles and gas (usually hydrogen gas). Nearby is a star that after millions of years suddenly goes supernova and ejects all kinds of materials into the cloud, materials that we have found on Earth; iron, gold, and a host of other elements that were created by that star over millions of years. The force of the explosion and the materials starts the cloud moving and eventually all the materials that were ejected from the exploding star begin to coalesce with the gas and dust of the cloud. Over time, small pieces turn into big pieces, big pieces turn into small exo-planets and eventually they all collide and we are left with a handful of remaining planets and moons all rotating around a brand new star created by the hydrogen gas. We now have a newly created solar system that started by a single explosion of a star. This is how solar systems are created by a natural process and inanimate forces.

In the same way I offered an explanation of how a solar system is formed, galaxies and ecosystems also have detailed explanations on how they form, all fitting together with the evidence at hand. That's how evolution also works, it has a detailed explanation on how life forms over very long periods of time can slowly change through the process of natural selection and diversity. None of it was prepared or thought, it all happened through natural random processes, all having very good, detailed explanations.

My common sense tells me to look at the facts, understand the explanations and how the evidence fits in with them. I am forced to be unbiased with these explanations, that I must look at them with an open mind, think about how they work and how they can created something such as we observe all around us.

I would ask of you the same thing, to help me see your claim through unbiased eyes and an open mind, but of course, I'll need detailed explanations that fit with the evidence and all work with the known processes and forces of nature. Thanks again.

I would ask of you the same thing, to help me see your claim through unbiased eyes and an open mind

I am fully aware of all the angles, I'm well versed in many hypotheses and I do educate myself on scientific studies. So just because I have come to an obvious conclusion doesn't mean I'm not open-minded or that I am biased. Materialism, atheism and naturalism are all worldviews I have been facing and addressing for a long time now. I'm sharing with you what I believe to be the superior view.

Having said that what we have been discussing is only one aspect of what I base my beliefs on, we are just working from a surface level platform. If I can get you to see that it is reasonable to consider there is a Creator involved then maybe we can discuss all the things that it implies from God to creation to the soul, and many of the deeper issues or concerns with religious theologies.

I am fully aware of all the angles, I'm well versed in many hypotheses and I do educate myself on scientific studies. So just because I have come to an obvious conclusion doesn't mean I'm not open-minded or that I am biased. Materialism, atheism and naturalism are all worldviews I have been facing and addressing for a long time now. I'm sharing with you what I believe to be the superior view.

Having said that what we have been discussing is only one aspect of what I base my beliefs on, we are just working from a surface level platform. If I can get you to see that it is reasonable to consider there is a Creator involved then maybe we can discuss all the things that it implies from God to creation to the soul, and many of the deeper issues or concerns with religious theologies.

what I believe to be the superior view

If I can get you to see that it is reasonable to consider there is a Creator involved then maybe we can discuss.........