@Vochensmut
This incredibly flawed argument (in multiple ways) is the best you can come up with?

Even if, somehow, this argument was "correct" and reality/truth it still in no way ties to any sort of god I ever heard of. Any god concept could take credit for this concept/idea. Without any sort of evidence tying to this to any particular god idea, even an incredibly vague god idea, makes these type arguments worthless in themselves.

Argument of complexity? We have seen this dozens of times.

Take a grain of sand. The amount of information, the complexity of that grain of sand, how each atom within the grain connects to the next, how it came to be in it's current form. The "complexity" of this tiny grain of sand would fill all the hard drives of every hard drive/ storage medium humankind has ever made, a billion plus times over.

We could try to say "this complexity evidences my particular god idea" or we could realize the grain of sand interacted with the environment through wave action and so much more, besides the "complexity" of this grain of sand being possibly "born" in the mouth/stomach and pooped out of a parrotfish.

If you want to say your god designed each grain of sand on the beach:

Then the human race, the planet, our solar system, would be far less than 1/trillionth of all complexity. Humans/earth would not even be a noticeable detail to a "god" idea of these dimensions. A god idea of these dimensions would have less regard for all of our solar system then we humans would have of one random particular grain of sand in all the beaches on the planet past, present and future.

One fatal flaw theist apologist always do is build an all powerful god idea, then immediately give many examples of how such a god idea is not all powerful etc.

Besides the whole theist apologist trying to convince themselves and others that their completely unevidenced god idea is actually real, because that is what is convenient/easy to them.

Worse, these theist apologist are somehow threatened by the idea that people do not believe this unevidenced idea, even if they say all the time that their god idea is self evident and above questioning and these apologist are convinced they are 100% right.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

And, we have MORE drivel from our resident presuppositionalist troll.

Let's take a look at this shall we?

When you see a car , you think intuitively .... carmaker ,unless your presented with an alternative such as a tornado sweeping thru a junkyard and assembling the vehicle by chance ( if it's a1989 Ford of any type ) .

Ahem, the reason we regard cars as manufactured entities, is because we have a large body of observational data telling us this. Indeed, during my school years, I was taken on a tour of a car manufacturing plant, and observed the process first hand.

Also, cars and other manifest human artefacts are not self-replicating entities. Which is one important distinction between such entities and the contents of the biosphere, which are self-replicating entities, and to which different rules apply as a corollary.

An infinitely more complex universe than a car including the minds capable of assembling that car , screams .... universe maker !

No it doesn't. This is nothing more than the jumping to an unwarranted conclusion on the part of you and other supernaturalists, particularly when we already have tens of thousands of scientific papers pointing to the ubiquity of testable natural processes, along with empirical tests demonstrating that said processes work.

The universe (I am convinced) is a real-time open display of the eternal power of an invisible Being theists call God .

Oh look, it's that favourite supernaturalist drivel, known as "I'm too stupid to understand testable natural processes, therefore Magic Man did it". Which is all you have to offer here.

The evidence is all around you and in you

Bullshit. Just because you're too stupid to understand physics, chemistry and biology, doesn't mean mythological assertions become fact on the back of your ignorance and stupidity. I'll deal at length with this garbage of yours shortly, but first, I'll address the remaining parts of your current drivel ...

therefore the existence of God is self -evident

No it isn't. The hologram in your head isn't real. It's something you and other supernaturalists dreamt up, to hide your ignorance.

and God has no obligation to give any more proof than that which he has already given .

Except your imaginary magic man has done nothing of the sort. This is a fantasy on your part.

Besides, if he were to fully disclose himself to you at this present time you wouldn't survive the experience and that wouldn't be very nice ?

Please, bring it fucking on. We've been waiting for something other than regurgitated mythological assertion and fatuous apologetic fabrication from supernaturalists for 5,000 years, and I for one welcome any existing god type entity showing its face. Not least because, and this is something else you're too stupid to understand, that event will almost certainly falsify every sad mythology that supernaturalists cling to.

This is what the holy book of most theists means when it says " the invisible things of him are clearly seen " (self -evident) so that detractors are "without excuse" .

In other words, more made up shit from supernaturalists. Oh, and your "holy book" was written by piss-stained Bronze Age incels, who were too stupid to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses.

And just a brief on your comment "philosophy don't even come close to proving ":
Philosophy is the study of Ultimate Reality

No it isn't. Thjis is another fantasy entertained by supernaturalists. Philosophy, pursued properly, is the business of determining which questions are proper to ask, and as a corollary, leaves the business of answering those questions, to whichever other disciplines possess the requisite methodology.

and without good philosophy ( there is much bad philosophy I agree) your OP and my response could never be properly understood let alone the universe and all the conjecture about it's origins ?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Cosmological physicists are making the origin of the universe a part of their scientific remit. It's Game Over for mythology fanboys.

If you throw out philosophy then out goes good reasoning ,the laws of logic , and .....all scientific inquiry ?

Read the part Douglas Adams wrote about Deep Thought.

Einstein -" The man of science is a poor philosopher "

Oh, two can play at this game, viz:

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them. - Albert Einstein, in a letter to Eric Gutkind in 1954

Source: Letters Of Note

"Philosophy is like logic , to deny it is to use it" - Frank Turek

Turek is a charlatan, like every other presuppositonalist.

And now, it's time to piss all over your fatuous erection of the "design" assertion ... is everyone sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin.

TOSSING THE SUPERNATURALIST "DESIGN" ASSERTION INTO THE BIN

It's apposite for me to address the entire "design" assertion here, not least for the purpose of ensuring that the usual apologetics on the subject are pre-empted.

Apart from the fact that evolutionary processes do not possess any intent, upon account of the absence of sentience thereof, part of the problem is that we, as creatures manifestly possessing intent, are naturally predisposed to project that intent upon our surroundings, even when said projection is misleading. This, of course, is the underlying driving force behind the entire supernaturalist "design" assertion, not to mention the entire supernaturalist enterprise itself - our tendency to erect metaphors grounded in our own intent to provide explanations for assorted observed phenomena. For that matter, you'll even see the same metaphor erected in some scientific papers, part of the problem being that those papers are addressed to an audience whose members know that this is simply a metaphor, erected for the convenience of our comprehension, but which sadly lends itself all to readily to duplicitous apologetic quote mining by the usual ideological stormtroopers for doctrine. But of course, scientists are usually too busy pushing ahead with their research, to worry about how their documentation thereof is likely to be subject to discoursive mischief.

From a rigorous standpoint, the word "design" is used in scientific papers, simply as a shorthand for any processes that produce a functioning entity, the understanding being, of course, that testable natural processes are perfectly capable of satisfying this remit. As long as that usage is understood, scientists see no reason why they cannot press that shorthand into service, not least for brevity. The trouble, of course, is that said shorthand is all too frequently subject to egregiously mendacious contortion by creationists. Consequently, it's time to revisit the business of flushing the entire supernaturalist "design" assertion down the toilet, not least because that assertion is accompanied by a brand of apologetics whose innate discoursive dishonesty, once exposed, is breathtaking to behold.

The first piece of dishonesty contained with the supernaturalist "design" assertion, centres upon that familiar supernaturalist tactic, the conflation of two entirely different meanings of a given word, and using this to try and present a mere assertion as established fact, a tactic that should be familiar by now to many here. When erecting the usual apologetics about "design", creationists in particular perform a discoursively criminal bait and switch with two entirely different concepts. The first of these is the concept they're trying to establish as purportedly constituting fact, which is properly and rigorously to be given its own term. That concept, namely supernatural magic design, is usually defined as the purposeful arrangement of parts, with perfect foreknowledge of the behaviour of those parts, both before and after integration. The assertion erected about the invisible magic man of their favourite mythology, is that said entity purportedly knew in advance what it wanted, and how to achieve that end result, an assertion that already looks shaky in the light of the hard evidence we have, that 99% of all species that have ever existed have become extinct. I'll use the acronym SMD to refer to this concept for brevity hereafter.

What happens, after erecting the SMD assertion (and of course, it remains merely an assertion), is that creationists then point to an entirely different set of "design" activities, namely those performed by humans, and assert that these design activities somehow provide evidence for SMD. But of course, human design activities (hereafter shortened to "HD") do nothing of the sort. Not least because, if one examines the entire history of HD, the idea that HD involves "perfect foreknowledge" is laughably absurd. Indeed, in the earliest days of HD, there was no foreknowledge at all! If you examine the earliest prototypes of many familiar technologies, and do so honestly, including the failures as well as the successes, then it becomes manifestly apparent that HD bears no resemblance to SMD at all. Indeed, Paley's own example of wrist watches is a case in point: the earliest attempts to produce one look nothing like the mature product we see today, a product that has benefitted from 350 years or more of trial and error, accompanied by refinement of antecedent models that were found to work sufficiently well for their desired purpose. Another classic example is provided by aircraft: take a look at these hilarious failures, and ask yourself, if any of these bear the stamp of "perfect foreknowledge":

Early Aircraft Failures - Video Link

It should be obvious at this point that the above comic collection of contraptions do nothing of the sort. But, of course, this is the second bait and switch creationists perform with their duplicitous "design" apologetics - they point to the mature products of technologies that have benefitted from one, two, three or even more centuries of past trial and error, and hold these up as supporting their first bait and switch, the attempt to establish the now manifestly false equation "SMD = HD". Of course, this blatant cherry-picking also neglects the fact that even mature technologies can produce failures - this being a case in point:

Air France 443 - Video Link

At this point, it should be apparent that HD, far from bearing any connection to SMD, consists of the following steps:

[1] Try something out;
[2] Discard the failures;
[3] Build upon the successes.

If anything, HD is far closer to evolution than to SMD! The one important difference being, of course, that evolution cannot simply throw everything into the bin and start all over again with a completely unrelated trial entity: evolution has to work with what it's produced before. Humans, on the other hand, can try something completely different, without having to cobble it together from ancestral parts. The transition from piston engines to jet engines in the world of aircraft propulsion is a case in point, but of course, modern jet engines, benefiting from 70 years of trial and error, then building upon the successes, are a fair way removed from Frank Whittle's original prototype.

Of course, an even greater irony centres upon the fact that in the present, scientists are now pressing evolutionary processes into service in the laboratory, in order to "design" entities of interest, and I have several interesting scientific papers covering this topic in my collection. In doing so, they're openly admitting that they don't possess "perfect foreknowledge", and indeed, don't possess any foreknowledge about what said experiments will produce! Needless to say, the evolutionary processes thus being harnessed also lack any foreknowledge, they simply go about the business of producing lots of variations, discarding the abject failures, and building upon the successes, in a manner not that far removed from our human ancestors. The very fact that evolutionary processes can be thus mechanised, pressed into service, and produce working products, should be telling anyone who pays attention honestly to the entire relevant data set, something very important. If, for example, evolutionary processes can produce a working spacecraft communications antenna, despite the simulation in question having no actual knowledge about these entities, merely a set of fitness conditions and test results, and I've presented the relevant paper elsewhere in the past, then the idea that a fantastic magic entity is needed to produce the biosphere, whose contents are effectively bags of chemical reagents with ideas above their station, should be a complete non-starter.

In short, if one understands how scientists use the word "design" as a metaphor, then under the terms of that metaphor, evolutionary processes constitute a perfectly adequate "designer", one that has been demonstrated to work. It may be bereft of foreknowledge, but it doesn't need any. All it needs, at bottom, is a source of variation, the ability for those variations to be inherited by descendants, and a set of conditions that differentiate "fail" from "success". That is it.

Indeed, the entire bait and switch deployed by duplicitous pedlars of apologetics, is not only dishonest for comparing two entirely different "design" activities, but is also dishonest because it mendaciously presses into apologetic service mature technologies benefiting from decades or centuries of trial and error, whilst omitting any reference to that long history of trial and error. A classic example, which I present here with delicious irony, is the very business of watchmaking, that formed the basis of the failed "Paley's Watchmaker" apologetics.

When one traces the history of watches, one finds again a process of gradual development involving trial and error. The first portable clocks were still far too big to be carried in a pocket, let alone worn upon a wrist, and the first such instances of these, back in the 15th century, only had an hour hand. The accuracy of these devices was so low that they were little more than expensive toys for rich people. It took finite time for watchmakers to learn, for example, that the force delivered by a mainspring is not a constant, and that some means of taking account of this had to be devised, and the first of these, a device known as a stackfreed, was abandoned after about 100 years because of the undesirable friction it introduced into the mechanism. The fusee, a different device, persisted for longer, but was eventually abandoned in the 19th century when a superior solution arose. The balance spring only appeared in 1657, and the first watches with a minute hand only appeared around 1680 as a result of the development of the balance spring. The verge escapement, which had been used in large pendulum driven clocks since the 13th century, was replaced by the cylinder escapement in 1695 - it took humans three hundred years or so to move on to this better idea. We had to wait until 1759 for the lever escapement, which, ironically, only made major inroads into Swiss watchmaking around 1900. We had to wait until 1923 for the first successful self-winding system, based upon converting the wearer's arm motion into rotary motion that kept the mainspring tension constant. The Incabloc shock protection system, to protect jewel bearings from critical failure stresses if the watch was dropped, wasn't invented until 1934. The first working electrically powered watches did not appear until 1957.

Once again, the history of watches is replete with trial and error, discarding of failures, and building upon successes. The development of the modern wrist watch bears more resemblance to an evolutionary process than to "magic design".

Finally, I have yet to encounter a supernaturalist, who even acknowledges the existence of the question I am about to present here, let alone demonstrates any attempt to provide an answer thereto. That question being, do you know what it takes, to convert the "design" assertion into something other than the product of your rectal passage?" Let's see if any supernaturalist can step up to the plate and provide a proper, rigorous answer to this question, without being spoon fed beforehand. Thus far, I have seen NO supernaturalist rise to this challenge, let alone succeed therein, and their own ideological presuppositions here constitute a major reason for that failure. Let's see if the supernaturalists here can break that precedent, shall we? A word to everyone else: if you know the answer, don't give clues, let the supernaturalists work this out for themselves.

As an illustration of the supernaturalist failure involved, I shall attach a little image to this post. This image depicts a large number of rocks. Just one of those rocks, is a "designed" artefact, namely, a Palaeolithic stone tool. NO supernaturalist I've presented this image to, has been able to identify correctly the "designed" rock, or provide cogent reasons for their choice. Let's see how long it takes supernaturalists to bail out of this challenge, shall we?

Vochensmut "When you see a car , you think intuitively .... carmaker"

I do no such thing, I don't use intuition to determine anything. I know cars are designed because objective evidence can be demonstrated, and they never occur naturally. Your junkyard analogy is a variation of Hoyle's fallacy, it's called that for a reason, it's fallacious. Your argument from complexity is a god of the gaps polemic, firstly there is no evidence complexity requires a designer, secondly we know for an objective fact that complexity can occur naturally without a designer through evolution.

I have no idea what "ultimate reality" means, how does it differ from reality, and what objective evidence can you demonstrate for it? I've no problem with philosophy, but it is asinine to try and pretend it can refute known scientific facts, and your "logic" is littered with known common logical fallacies. You also seem to have not noticed that you being convinced of something is subjective opinion, not evidence, and of course you have demonstrate no evidence that the creator you want to believe is necessary to create the universe is the deity you also want to believe is real. Assuming attributes for your deity that you can't demonstrate any evidence for, in your argument for that deity is of course another common logical fallacy called a begging the question fallacy. You do know that by definition nothing containing or using a known logical fallacy can be asserted as rational don't you? You want to claim to be making rational arguments, but you're not.

Einstein -" The man of science is a poor philosopher "

That one is an appeal to authority fallacy.

@Vochensmut: You can choose to demonstrate what you are calling evidence is anything of the kind or you can go along your ignorant way pretending that you know something without any sort of support for that imagined knowledge what so ever.

IF all nature (universe) had a beginning. "IF" being the operative word because we don't actually know "IF" there is a beginning or not. IF the universe had a beginning, was it all there was or was it a beginning within the structure of the cosmos? If it began, was it the only universe to begin? Could it just be a natural process? These questions and more are quite simply beyond our ability to answer. (Inserting a God just creates a God of the gaps Fallacy.)

RE: Something beyond nature (the natural) had to be the cause? How did you rule out the natural? Even if something were the cause, why does it get to be your version of god and not a sufficiently intelligent alien or a blue universe creating bunny? How have you ruled out all other possibilities and end up with your version of a god?

RE: Supernatural: Now there is a ten-cent word. Can you demonstrate anything at all that qualifies as "supernatural?"

RE: It's impossible that a natural cause will be discovered. (Analogy fails.)

WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS - All you present is woo woo bullshit. NO FACTS. Assertions pile on assertions. Assertion offered as evidence for other assertions. Your post is bullshit from top to bottom.