Frank Turek looks at Scientism of the gaps

BO'H: we KNOW the empirically effective source of FSCO/I. It is not -- repeat, NOT -- a gaps argument to infer from reliable sign to signified cause. The living cell has codes, algorithms, so language, molecular nanotech execution machinery etc, in exceedingly complex form implementing a von Neumann, kinematic self-replicator. The known adequate cause for language applied to codes and algorithms is not in doubt, it is intelligently directed configuration. Whodunit is an onward question but on the first question, that tweredun, the matter is clear. Especially as no one has shown an empirically efficacious cause of codes and algorithms etc apart from language using intelligence. Those who try to substitute inadequate cause for known adequate cause are the real ones trying to advance an unwarranted claim. often, by trying to push ideological censorship on inductive inference, as say Lewontin documented. KF kairosfocus

Correction. My last response was to 46, not 42. hnorman42

Bob O'H @42 This is a fairly popular argument but I've never been able to connect with it. Knowledge is not an entitlement. We gain as much knowledge as we can and I personally am grateful for it. A similar situation exists with regard to the multiverse. I think there are good arguments against it but I've never heard anybody say that it couldn't be true because scientists can't identify the universes in it. Still working on a response to 42. It's very interesting. I've got a lot on my plate though. hnorman42

Regarding the “unidentified designer”, that is not a postulated option but a refusal to postulate an option because of insufficient knowledge.

What is ID doing to remedy this so that it has sufficient knowledge? Bob O'H

Bob O'H @42 I may have confused propositional calculus with something to do with sets - or not. I'll think about it in the morning. I think my main point was that all agents of change either possess intelligence or they do not. So to diminish one is to support the other. Contrast this with the problems of learning the identity of a designer. Showing that Susan did not bake a cake does not support the idea that Richard did, because Ann, Mark and Kathy may have done so as well. Regarding the "unidentified designer", that is not a postulated option but a refusal to postulate an option because of insufficient knowledge. Leaving a gap unfilled is not a gap argument. A gap argument is an inappropriate effort to fill a gap when knowledge is inadequate. Your objection about there being multiple blind forces to deal with is proving to have a lot of nuance. I'll comment on it tomorrow. hnorman42

of related note:

“A God of the gaps argument is an argument that has a formal logical structure that in logic is known as a ‘argument from ignorance’. It is an informal fallacy. Arguments from ignorance have the following form.,,, 1. Cause A is not sufficient to produce effect X 2. Therefore cause B must have produced effect X ,,, but if I have no independent evidence that cause B can produce effect X, then I have committed a fallacy of arguing from ignorance. Because, just because cause A is not sufficient to produce effect X doesn't mean that some other cause did it. You have to have independent evidence that that other cause is capable of doing it (i.e. producing the effect in question). That then becomes a God of the gaps argument when you say various natural processes are not sufficient to produce, say, the origin of the first life or the origin of the first animals in the history of life. If I were then to say, “Therefore God did it”, that would be a God of the gaps argument. It would be an argument from ignorance. But that is not how we are arguing when we make the case for Intelligent Design because we are adding an additional premise. We are saying that.,,, 1. Various natural processes are not sufficient to produce new functional information, (specifically the digital code that is stored in the DNA molecule). 2. We do know of a cause that does produce (functional digital) information. (We have independent evidence that intelligent agency, that mind,,, can create (functional digital) information.),,, ,,, so we are not arguing from our ignorance. We are arguing from our knowledge of cause and effect in the world. (Specifically we are arguing from what we know minds can do, i.e. produce information.) - Stephen Meyer Debunks the “God of the Gaps” Objection - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGqzCA1mnyM

bornagain77

The 'God of the gaps' argument from Atheists and Theistic Evolutionists fails on so many levels that it is hard to know where to begin. So let's start with the origin of the argument itself. The origin of the argument goes back to atheist Friedrich Nietzsche and to theistic evolutionist Henry Drummond.

God of the gaps - Origins of the term From the 1880s, Friedrich Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part Two, "On Priests", said "... into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God.".[3] The concept, although not the exact wording, goes back to Henry Drummond, a 19th-century evangelist lecturer, from his Lowell Lectures on The Ascent of Man(1904) . He chastises those Christians who point to the things that science cannot yet explain—"gaps which they will fill up with God"—and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."[4][5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#Origins_of_the_term

Nietzsche's claim, "into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God", was a very interesting claim for Nietzsche to make. The reason why it is interesting is that if God is not real, but is merely a delusion as atheists hold, then everything else becomes a delusion for the atheist.

Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, April 2021 - Detailed Defense of each claim https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/philosophy/philosopher-mary-midgeley-1919-2018-on-scientism/#comment-728595 https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/evolution/from-philip-cunningham-the-human-eye-like-the-human-brain-is-a-wonder/#comment-727327

Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be. So, since everything that normal everyday people regard as being real becomes an illusion under Darwinian materialism, the Christian Theist has every right to ask "what exactly is regarded as being undeniably real for the Darwinian materialist and/or naturalist?" Well, for one thing, as one of their main and primary presuppositions, the Darwinian materialist and/or naturalist, as the name 'materialist' implies, holds that material particles are 'real' and that everything else "is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories."

What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? - M. Anthony Mills - April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

And although, as a primary presupposition, the Darwinian atheist holds that material particles are the ultimate reality upon which everything else must be based, and although the Darwinian atheist holds that Christian Theists are being 'unscientific' in their rejection of his supposedly 'scientific' presupposition of reductive materialism, the fact of the matter is that science itself has now falsified the Darwinian materialist's belief that material particles are 'real'. As the following delayed choice experiment that was done with atoms demonstrated, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,”

New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It - June 3, 2015 Excerpt: Some particles, such as photons or electrons, can behave both as particles and as waves. Here comes a question of what exactly makes a photon or an electron act either as a particle or a wave. This is what Wheeler’s experiment asks: at what point does an object ‘decide’? The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html

As well, Leggett's inequality has now also falsified 'realism', (which is the belief that a physical reality exists independently of our conscious observation of it)

Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it. "Our study shows that 'just' giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics," Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. "You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

Thus, although the Darwinian materialist may hold that the Christian Theist is not being 'scientific' in his rejection of the Darwinist's reductive materialistic worldview, the fact of the matter is that empirical science itself has now crushed the Darwinian materialist's belief that material particles are the ultimate reality upon which all other 'scientific' explanations must ultimately be based. So thus in conclusion, although atheists, with their 'God of the gaps' argument. hold that, "into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God", the fact of the matter is that, without God, the atheistic materialist is forced to hold that everything that normal everyday people regard as being undeniably real, (I.e. personhood, free will, beauty, morality, etc.. etc...), is a delusion. Moreover, and more importantly as far as science itself is concerned, science itself has now falsified the Darwinian materialist's primary belief that material particles are 'real'. In short, it is not belief in God that is a delusion, but it is the Darwinist's belief that material particles are 'real' that is a delusion. Now to rephrase Nietzsche's 'God of the gaps' quote to more properly reflect what empirical science itself has now revealed to us, "into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called material particles".

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

bornagain77

hnorman42 @ 37 -

My main point was that ID is not a case of option A against option B. It’s a case of option A against option not-A. They can’t both be wrong.

Why not?

To undermine one is to strengthen the other. And the problems with unintelligent forces producing the appearance of design are galling.

But ID doesn't test all theories involving unintelligent forces. It only tests one. If successful, it

The identity of the designer is a different story. To assert A, when B, C and D are possibilities, would be a gap argument.

Right, "an unidentified designer" is you A, so I think that is precisely a gap argument. Bob O'H

That seems far more prudent, and less like folly.

But the problem is that many prefer folly as we see on this site and in the world around us. Great explanation! jerry

M @39, seems like you have a worldview based on your subjective preference, as opposed to what is objectively true. At the end, what's true is going to be what's true, and our preferences matter not a whit. Why wouldn't you want to go with what's true, and conform yourself to that which you believe is true, based on a preponderance of the evidence, rather than fitting objective reality to meet your subjective preferences. That seems far more prudent, and less like folly. AnimatedDust

Sandy, why don't you understand about the fundamental importance of opinion and fact? It is like 1+1=2, it is abc. The concepts of opinion and fact, are the basic tools for reasoning. Why don't you understand that? It is obvious. I appreciate the diversity of ordinary personal characters, and the saintly character is just one character. I loathe the kind of character that is always about doing the best. It strikes me as superficial. The correct fundamental understanding of making a choice, is for the subjective spirit to spontaneously make one of alternative futures the present. It's not about which option is the best. The goodness or evil are in the spirit doing the choosing, not in the chosen option. Then still it is good advise to think about what is best before you make a choice, but people become atheists and materialists, when they define making a choice in terms of figuring out the best option, without reference to the spirit making the choice. mohammadnursyamsu

Of related note, in the following article Brian Miller presents an excellent historical overview of the debate between atheists and Theists, as well as the current state of the debate, as far as the scientific evidence itself in concerned.

Darrel Falk Downplays the Ramifications of the 2016 Royal Society Meeting Brian Miller - June 2, 2021 Excerpt: In the opening talk, organizer Gerd Müller stated that the SEM, (the standard evolutionary model), could explain the modification or duplication of existing traits, but it could not explain such key challenges as the following (here, here): *The origin of complex new traits such as eyes (here, here, here). *The consistent pattern in the fossil record of the sudden appearance of radically new organisms followed by periods of no significant change (here, here). *The distribution of genetic variation in species. He was referring to the fact that no genetic variation exists in any species that would allow for large-scale transformations (here, here). For instance, crossbreeding dogs will only produce dogs since dogs only have dog genes. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/darrel-falk-downplays-the-ramifications-of-the-royal-society-meeting/

bornagain77

Bob O'H @24 regarding 21 My main point was that ID is not a case of option A against option B. It's a case of option A against option not-A. They can't both be wrong. To undermine one is to strengthen the other. And the problems with unintelligent forces producing the appearance of design are galling. The identity of the designer is a different story. To assert A, when B, C and D are possibilities, would be a gap argument. That would answer the middle option you presented (b) and that's the one that's really relevant to gap arguments. The other two, I think, are just saying that no explanation is final. That applies to all scientific arguments. hnorman42

Bob O'H:

You assert theory B because there are gaps in theory A.

There isn't any theory A. That is the problem. Some unknown processes did something sometime in the past, doesn't bode well for a mechanistic scenario.

The problems are (a) the gaps in theory A might be closed (e.g. if your model you used to show a gap is wrong, and a better one comes along), (b) theory B might also be wrong, (c) theory B might also have similar (or even worse) gaps.

You have just shown how to falsify the theory B. ET

Earth to Bob O'H- We have found the fingerprints. And all you and your ilk can do is say there aren't any footprints. ET

Mohammadnursyamsu That is one of the reasons I prefer Islam over Christianity,

Reason? You 've just confirmed my point. If you compare Jesus with Mohammed is there a single point where Mohammed is superior? Nope. But you prefer islam .Why? Because pure reason is not taken into account by yourself but you think is gonna be taken into account by others? with your Teach the difference between opinion and fact ? :)) Sandy

That is one of the reasons I prefer Islam over Christianity, that the muslim aspiration is just to be ordinary people, as God created them, and not this kind of saints. There is a lot of respect in the way the prophet Muhammad brings the message to people. Serving the people in bringing the message, as well as serving God. And Islam emphasizes straightforwardness, it is really very much about belief in God, submitting to God in worhsip. As also the creationist conceptual scheme is just straightforward. Not fancy principles of right reasoning, but just the plain definitions of opinion and fact. And every ordinary opinion such as what do you like for breakfast, is a valid opinion, and also immoral opinions are logically valid. And not just fancy opinions based on principles of right reasoning, are valid. My solution could actually work. I mean, work bigtime, cause real societal change. And if it didn't produce massive changes, then ok, people would still have a better understanding of opinion and fact, which is also great. Also, evolutionists would go totally of their rocker if creationism is taught in school, so, that would be fun. mohammadnursyamsu

Mohammadnursyamsu So how do you envision an actual solution to the problems of the decay of civilization, Kairosfocus? Compare the solutions offered: Kairosfocus: Teach first principles of right reasoning – would take years for an individual to learn it, with specialized and therefore expensive training – would create an elite class of experts on the complicated subject, who could conspire to monopolize power, leading to corruption Syamsu: Teach the difference between opinion and fact, with the creationist conceptual scheme – would take a few weeks to learn a simple subject, that people already know intuitively from common discourse – would straight up immediately kill off materialism as wrong, and all the politics based on it, socialism

Nope. The only solution is to became a saint and that is posible only in christianity. The truth is not democratic is very exclusive. Sandy

MNY, whoever said the solution is simply to teach principles of right reason? I do think it is a key step to learn how to disentangle the mess and learn to think straight but that is far, far from the reformation we need. Mind you, last time around, a certain prof in a run of the mill uni posted 95 rather academic theological points for debate on a church door that went viral as printing presses had been invented about 50 years before, so maybe there is somewhat to that idea. KF kairosfocus

So how do you envision an actual solution to the problems of the decay of civilization, Kairosfocus? Compare the solutions offered: Kairosfocus: Teach first principles of right reasoning - would take years for an individual to learn it, with specialized and therefore expensive training - would create an elite class of experts on the complicated subject, who could conspire to monopolize power, leading to corruption Syamsu: Teach the difference between opinion and fact, with the creationist conceptual scheme - would take a few weeks to learn a simple subject, that people already know intuitively from common discourse - would straight up immediately kill off materialism as wrong, and all the politics based on it, socialism mohammadnursyamsu

Aside: when I was researching a proposal for a dissertation in graduate school (finished ABD so no degree,) I was trying to conduct a scale of positive and negative characteristics for evaluating people. The most positive characteristic was “sincere” which showed people instinctively wanted honesty in people they were dealing with. Was this evidence for a natural law? I believe so. It’s built in. We used to joke that most desirable trait for a politician was the ability to fake sincerity. Ironically that seems to be a truism. jerry

You assert theory B because there are gaps in theory A.

The use of the word “assert” and “gaps” are ambiguous without modifiers. The statement might be better said

You assert theory B because theory B is definitely possible and there are gaps in theory A that seem insurmountable.

There is always the possibility that the gaps in theory A may become less insurmountable. But if anything the science of recent years has shown the gap to be getting bigger. Meanwhile B is getting easier to see how it is possible. Even Richard Dawkins agrees. As long as it’s not God. So it’s really a “Designer” of the gaps theory. I love the way HNorman42 expressed it. jerry

kf @ 25 -

BO’H & Sev: we know that design exists and often leaves fingerprints behind.

So look for the fingerprints. Don't look for the lack of footprints. Bob O'H

PS: The first duties issue, in summary:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable . . . first duties of reason: "Inescapable," as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to their legitimate authority; inescapable, so first truths of reason, i.e. they are self-evidently true and binding. Namely, Ciceronian first duties,

1st - to truth, 2nd - to right reason, 3rd - to prudence [including warrant], 4th - to sound conscience, 5th - to neighbour; so also, 6th - to fairness and 7th - to justice [ . . .] xth - etc.

Likewise, we observe again, that objectors to such duties cannot but appeal to them to give their objections rhetorical traction,while also those who try to prove such cannot but appeal to the principles too. So, these principles are a branch on which we all must sit, including objectors and those who imagine they are to be proved and try. That is, these are first principles of rational, responsible, conscience guided liberty and so too a built-in framework of law; yes, core natural law of human nature. Reason, inescapably, is morally governed. Of course, there is a linked but not equivalent pattern: bounded, error-prone rationality often tied to ill will and stubbornness or even closed mindedness; that’s why the study of right reason has a sub-study on fallacies and errors. That we sometimes seek to evade duties or may make inadvertent errors does not overthrow such first duties of reason, which instead help us to detect and correct errors, as well as to expose our follies. Perhaps, a negative form will help to clarify, for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law, then, is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate's cynical "what is truth?": truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence -- in key part -- the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.

kairosfocus

BO'H & Sev: we know that design exists and often leaves fingerprints behind. An inference from empirically reliable sign to adequate causal process is not an appeal to ignorance. As to God and roots of morality it is by now pretty clear that rationality, as an expression of free responsible conduct, is morally governed by Ciceronian first duties that also frame civil law. Even objectors to such cannot but appeal to their pervasive legitimate authority to gain rhetorical traction for their claims. This means, self evident government by duties to truth, right reason, prudence [including warrant] etc. We have a very legitimate inquiry as to what explains a world with such creatures, without reduction to absurdity. KF kairosfocus

Hnorman42 -

So is it an ID of the gaps argument? No. ID arguments generally turn on the question of demonstrating that unintelligent forces cannot produce the appearance of design. Showing the insufficiency of unintelligent forces is logically equivalent to showing the necessity of intelligent forces.

THank you - that is actually a nice summary of the God/Designer/Scientism of the Gaps argument. You assert theory B because there are gaps in theory A. The problems are (a) the gaps in theory A might be closed (e.g. if your model you used to show a gap is wrong, and a better one comes along), (b) theory B might also be wrong, (c) theory B might also have similar (or even worse) gaps. Bob O'H

Sev - You don`t want to believe thats fine ,but your not grasping the point , if ( an enormous if you may say)there is an all knowing all powerful , all moral, creator God who is the instructor of all moral wisdom and all reason and knowledge then we have a foundation for our morals, knowledge and reasoning's . If the material world is all there is, please briefly explain what foundation we have for morals, knowledge, reasoning. The argument for the existence of such a being is another argument, but the logic of my position is sound , how about the logic of your position Marfin

Marfin/20

Sev- Humour me Sev , putting aside whether said god exists or not , is it not logical to claim that if a creator, designer, moral ,all knowing, law giving God exists then what it would be fair to say, is that if this God tell us what is moral and what is not , that love is good and hate is bad , that being a liar is bad and being honest is good that we can trust his judgement in these matters , and hence have a basis and foundation for our behaviour.

We can certainly listen to what He has to say and we might agree with much of it but how is it anything other than His opinion? If we cannot legitimately reason to moral principles from the nature of the physical Universe then neither can He. And if He can't then on what is He basing His moral judgments? The other problem is that while this image of God as an immensely wise and benign old gentleman may be very comforting, it is clearly at odds with the picture of God that emerges from the Old Testament. So which is it? Seversky

I do not understand why ID is often considered a God of the Gaps argument. If ID made any claims regarding God then it would be legitimate to speak of a gap argument. So is it an ID of the gaps argument? No. ID arguments generally turn on the question of demonstrating that unintelligent forces cannot produce the appearance of design. Showing the insufficiency of unintelligent forces is logically equivalent to showing the necessity of intelligent forces. This is not a case of saying "If A, then B" when C, D and E are on the table. This is a case of saying "If not not-A, then A." There is nothing else on the table. hnorman42

Sev- Humour me Sev , putting aside whether said god exists or not , is it not logical to claim that if a creator, designer, moral ,all knowing, law giving God exists then what it would be fair to say, is that if this God tell us what is moral and what is not , that love is good and hate is bad , that being a liar is bad and being honest is good that we can trust his judgement in these matters , and hence have a basis and foundation for our behaviour. Marfin

@1 Seversky "Accusing naturalists of “scientism of the gaps” doesn’t make “God of the gaps” any better." True, but it shows that we both have faith. It shows that Materialists BELIEVE there really is no problem anywhere that is too difficult for chance to solve. Sure, it's a free country. Believe whatever you want to believe, but don't try to pass off you belief as more rational or somehow superior to the ID cause simply because one is natural and the other supernatural. Personally, it seems to me that an explanation with a sufficient cause is much more logical and probable than one that depends on chance. Always resorting to Chance as your Savior doesn't seem very scientific. tjguy

You cannot get "ought" from "is". There is no way for physical reality to be the foundation for moral claims. That is as true for God or alien intelligent designers as it is for us. Whatever they might claim, no one has a certain foundation for their "cans" and "cannots". Seversky

Sev- Your thinking can be reliable and unreliable , you can be moral and immoral at times , this is not the point that us believers make is that, not that you can or cannot, but that your position means you have no foundation to base your can and cannot on. If you disagree state you position for rational thinking and reasoning based in your material only world. Marfin

People who dismiss ID as "goddiddit" should be aware that the overwhelming majority of evolutionary explanations amount to nothing more than "darwindiddit". EvilSnack

Seversky claims that

"Sorry, I am attesting here and now that, as far as I can tell, my mind is the same now as an atheist as it was when I was a Christian."

Well actually no it isn't. Studies show that the design inference is a 'knee jerk' reaction that is built into everyone and that atheists have to mentally work suppressing the intuitive design inference that they themselves harbor.

Is Atheism a Delusion? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? - October 17, 2012 Excerpt: "Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find." The article describes a test by Boston University's psychology department, in which researchers found that "despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose" ,,, Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/design_thinking065381.html Richard Dawkins take heed: Even atheists instinctively believe in a creator says study - Mary Papenfuss - June 12, 2015 Excerpt: Three studies at Boston University found that even among atheists, the "knee jerk" reaction to natural phenomenon is the belief that they're purposefully designed by some intelligence, according to a report on the research in Cognition entitled the "Divided Mind of a disbeliever." The findings "suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed," writes a research team led by Elisa Järnefelt of Newman University. They also provide evidence that, in the researchers' words, "religious non-belief is cognitively effortful." Researchers attempted to plug into the automatic or "default" human brain by showing subjects images of natural landscapes and things made by human beings, then requiring lightning-fast responses to the question on whether "any being purposefully made the thing in the picture," notes Pacific-Standard. "Religious participants' baseline tendency to endorse nature as purposefully created was higher" than that of atheists, the study found. But non-religious participants "increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made" when "they did not have time to censor their thinking," wrote the researchers. The results suggest that "the tendency to construe both living and non-living nature as intentionally made derives from automatic cognitive processes, not just practised explicit beliefs," the report concluded. The results were similar even among subjects from Finland, where atheism is not a controversial issue as it can be in the US. "Design-based intuitions run deep," the researchers conclude, "persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them." http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/richard-dawkins-take-heed-even-atheists-instinctively-believe-creator-says-study-1505712

So no, your mind is not the same as it was when you were a Christian. Your mind has to work double time to try to 'explain away' the Design they you yourself intuitively knows exists. Ir regards to this statement I made, "Seversky, when you deny the reality of the Mind of God, and by default deny the reality of your own immaterial mind, you end up denying that the universe can have any purpose and also end denying that your own thoughts can have any intentional, goal directed, teleological, purpose." Seversky responds, "Non sequitur, as I pointed out above, I have been able to find the existence of your God unproven without suffering any ill-effects mentally." As should be needless to say, the person suffering 'ill-effects mentally' is often the very last person to know that they are suffering mentally. Contrary to what you believe Seversky, studies show that, mentally speaking, atheists suffer much more than Christians do.

“In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.” - Professor Andrew Sims - former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100

Seversky then states, "And without your God, if the Universe does have some overriding purpose, we’re going to have to look elsewhere. Also, you still haven’t answered the question I’ve posed several times before, if we are made in God’s image and He can form purposes then why can’t we? Why should His purposes be the only ones that count?" Huh? For crying out loud Seversky, you are the one holding onto a worldview that directly claims that the universe, and humans, are the product of unforeseen accidents and therefore, by definition, the universe and all life it can have no real purpose and/or meaning to their existence. Random, i.e. purposeless, accidents is literally the foundational defining precept of your entire worldview Seversky! Moreover, for you to claim that the meaning that you create for yourself is just as good as the meaning that God imparts to your life is simply delusional thinking your part. As the following article surmises the 'invented' meaning that atheists impart to their own lives, "it’s meaninglessness creating the illusion of meaning.,,,"

How I’m Planning to Celebrate Darwin Day – TOM GILSON – February 11, 2020 Excerpt: Tomorrow, February 12, is Darwin Day.,, ,,, Darwin’s theory “showed” that the human species was the product of unintended accidents (random variation) and natural selection. Natural selection means “survival of the fittest,” where “fittest” is known only by “that which survives.” Every species that’s ever appeared on earth was the product of accidents and the survival of, well, the survivors. Making Humanity Meaningless If that looks meaningless at first glance, it remains so under full-length analysis. To be human (under naturalistic or undirected evolution) is to have meaningless origins, and those meaningless origins mean we live in a meaningless world. Many staunch Darwinists will grant there’s no meaning behind human existence, but still insist, “I create meaning for myself.” But that hardly makes sense. More likely, it’s meaninglessness creating the illusion of meaning.,,, https://stream.org/how-planning-celebrate-darwin-day/

In regards to this statement I made, "The universe, and everything in it, including all your thoughts, are just one big ole mess of unintended accidents according to your atheistic worldview." Seversky responds, "Partly, but the Universe is also governed by regularities we call “laws”. Where they come from nobody knows but they mean it’s not just “one big ole mess of unintended accidents” although, looking at some people, I can see why you might get that idea." Hmm, interesting hypothesis. So are you saying that the laws are not unintended accidents? Perhaps you should get word of your hypothesis to the multiverse proponents who claim that the laws are the unforeseen products of random quantum fluctuations, instead of being the intentional product of the Mind of God. Moreover, for you to claim that rationality can be based on a law of nature simply does not follow. Rationality entails a mind, via its free will, choosing between logically viable options.

(1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts. (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain (determinism). (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2) (4) no effect can control its cause. Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality. per Box UD

Moreover, (besides the fact that, since naturalism denies that we have free will, and that therefore we are not in control of our thoughts), logic itself cannot be based in any naturalistic framework,

Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame. The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/

Thus, naturalism is simply a non-starter in so far as to providing a coherent foundation for rationality. Moreover it is interesting that Seversky would try to appeal to laws of nature to try to ground rationality., Laws, by their very nature, do not choose between logically viable options but simply dictate that some entity will always behave is such and such fashion. On top of all that, it is ironic that a Darwinist would try to appeal to a law of nature in order to try to explain rationality. There simply are no known laws of nature that Darwinists can appeal to in order to support their theory.

The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr - 2004 (page 2 of 14) Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don't know exceptions so I think it's probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences. ,,, And so that's what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics. per scientific American WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014 Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on. ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. - per the edge “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

Whatever law of nature Seversky is appealing to to try to ground rationality apparently exists solely in Severky's imagination and not in the real world. Moreover, Darwinists themselves admit that, if Darwinian evolution were actually true, then any beliefs that we might have about reality would be untrustworthy and unreliable as to their inherent truthfulness

“Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” - Richard Dawkins – quoted from “The God Delusion” “the illusion that our brains evolved to have, a very compelling and persistent illusion – namely that the reality we perceive is real, rather than a constructed representation.” – Steven Novella – academic clinical neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” – Steven Pinker “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true,… the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” – John Gray “Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive.” – Francis Crick “Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth.” – Eric Baum

Simply put, the Darwinian atheist, if his worldview were actually true, has no basis to ground rationality itself. As Nancy Pearcey explains, “Applied consistently, Darwinism undercuts not only itself but also the entire scientific enterprise. Kenan Malik, a writer trained in neurobiology, writes, “If our cognitive capacities were simply evolved dispositions, there would be no way of knowing which of these capacities lead to true beliefs and which to false ones.” Thus “to view humans as little more than sophisticated animals …undermines confidence in the scientific method.”,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality.”

Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself Nancy Pearcey – March 8, 2015 Excerpt: An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value. But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide.,,, Applied consistently, Darwinism undercuts not only itself but also the entire scientific enterprise. Kenan Malik, a writer trained in neurobiology, writes, “If our cognitive capacities were simply evolved dispositions, there would be no way of knowing which of these capacities lead to true beliefs and which to false ones.” Thus “to view humans as little more than sophisticated animals …undermines confidence in the scientific method.”,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality. https://evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar/

Thus although Seversky may try to claim that he, in his Darwinian worldview, can be just as rational as the Christian can be in his worldvie, the facts of the matter betrays Seversky. His worldview simply can not ground rationality. Verse and quotes:

John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” What is the Logos? Logos is a Greek word literally translated as “word, speech, or utterance.” However, in Greek philosophy, Logos refers to divine reason or the power that puts sense into the world making order instead of chaos.,,, In the Gospel of John, John writes “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John appealed to his readers by saying in essence, “You’ve been thinking, talking, and writing about the Word (divine reason) for centuries and now I will tell you who He is.” https://www.compellingtruth.org/what-is-the-Logos.html “Atheists can give no reason why they should value reason, and Christians can show how anyone who believes in reason must also believe in God.” Cogito; Ergo Deus Est by Charles Edward White Philosophy Still Lives Because God Isn’t Dead

bornagain77

seversky:

Partly, but the Universe is also governed by regularities we call “laws”. Where they come from nobody knows but they mean it’s not just “one big ole mess of unintended accidents” although, looking at some people, I can see why you might get that idea.

The laws are evidence for Intelligent Design. Materialism says they just happened to happen. "One big ole whole mess of unintended accidents" means that nothing was planned. So, with Intelligent Design, all there is to try to account for our existence is "one big ole mess of unintended accidents". Laws do NOT plan. Laws, well the forces they represent, cannot account for codes. But the proper wording would be "differential accumulations in one ole mess of unintended accidents". Very untestable. And as such very much pseudo-science. ET

Seversky Sorry, I am attesting here and now that, as far as I can tell, my mind is the same now as an atheist as it was when I was a Christian.

So you have always been an atheist. PS:who is a real Christian ,stays Christian forever. Sandy

Bornagain77/8

Written proof that atheists, when they forsake God, have literally ‘lost their minds’.

Sorry, I am attesting here and now that, as far as I can tell, my mind is the same now as an atheist as it was when I was a Christian.

Seversky, when you deny the reality of the Mind of God, and by default deny the reality of your own immaterial mind, you end up denying that the universe can have any purpose and also end denying that your own thoughts can have any intentional, goal directed, teleological, purpose.

Non sequitur, as I pointed out above, I have been able to find the existence of your God unproven without suffering any ill-effects mentally. And without your God, if the Universe does have some overriding purpose, we're going to have to look elsewhere. Also, you still haven't answered the question I've posed several times before, if we are made in God's image and He can form purposes then why can't we? Why should His purposes be the only ones that count?

The universe, and everything in it, including all your thoughts, are just one big ole mess of unintended accidents according to your atheistic worldview.

Partly, but the Universe is also governed by regularities we call "laws". Where they come from nobody knows but they mean it's not just "one big ole mess of unintended accidents" although, looking at some people, I can see why you might get that idea.

As C.S. Lewis explained in his ‘argument from reason’, “(Atheists) ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.

Is that the best Lewis can do? Reason is a process by which we try to model, describe and explain the Universe in which we find ourselves. It doesn't matter whether that Universe was created or came about through natural processes. We still have to deal with what's in front of us. Reason helps us do that because we have found it works. Seversky

How was your comment any different from the millions of comments spewed out of the mouth of Jerry Coyne That the mind is nothing more than an illusion? With that type of thought you literally saw the branch you’re sitting on right off the tree If there is no mind then you have no place to believe in God, and you have no place to not believe in God, that’s the point It’s not some adolescent stupidity like you like to try to re-interpret it What he means by that is that’s your philosophy, that you push, and your rules, but I don’t have to worry about that hypocrisy because I don’t believe that’s the case It’s like when you idiots tell me there’s no free will and then chastise me for not being able to change my mind and believe you That came from your court but I don’t have to worry about it because I believe in free will so I believe you’re capable of changing your mind It’s not us chasing our tails, it’s you The fact that the mind is an illusion and free will is an illusion came from your court of thinking and that’s what BA77 is pointing out And that type of thought comes with those types of consequences Your opinion and everything you do is just a result of chemical soup that if a different set of chemicals hit your brain at a different point of your life your perspective might not even exist So no one can really tell what is real because everything is fake Except for my opinion If anything is adolescence it is that type of thinking AaronS1978

re #6 CS Lewis says "unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” Like I said, this is being seduced into a madhouse of adolescent pseudo-intellectualism. "Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought....” Really? Unmitigated poppycock.... chuckdarwin

Darwinism = the biggest engineering challenges solved by a series of miraculous events ... martin_r

^^^^^ Written proof that atheists, when they forsake God, have literally 'lost their minds'. Seversky, when you deny the reality of the Mind of God, and by default deny the reality of your own immaterial mind, you end up denying that the universe can have any purpose and also end denying that your own thoughts can have any intentional, goal directed, teleological, purpose. The universe, and everything in it, including all your thoughts, are just one big ole mess of unintended accidents according to your atheistic worldview. As C.S. Lewis explained in his 'argument from reason', "(Atheists) ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.

Long before I believed Theology to be true I had already decided that the popular scientific picture at any rate was false. One absolutely central inconsistency ruins it…. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears. Unless we can be sure that reality in the remotest nebula … obeys the thought laws of the human scientist here and now in his laboratory—in other words, unless Reason is absolute—all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based. The difficulty is to me a fatal one;,,, C. S. Lewis - From “Is Theology Poetry,” in The Weight of Glory, 134–136.

In short, the atheist, in denying the reality of the Mind of God, and, by default, denying the reality of his own immaterial mind, ends up denying rationality altogether. As Martin Cothran explains, "By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order."

The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It: Sam Harris’s Free Will Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. https://evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre/

Of related note, in the following article neurosurgeon Michael Egnor explains the intimate link between teleology in nature and the intentionality of our thoughts, and how atheists must deny both in order for them to maintain a consistent worldview. He states, "eliminative materialism is necessary if a materialist is to maintain a non-teleological Darwinian metaphysical perspective. It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts."

Teleology and the Mind - Michael Egnor - August 16, 2016 Excerpt: From the hylemorphic perspective, there is an intimate link between the mind and teleology. The 19th-century philosopher Franz Brentano pointed out that the hallmark of the mind is that it is directed to something other than itself. That is, the mind has intentionality, which is the ability of a mental process to be about something, rather than to just be itself. Physical processes alone (understood without teleology) are not inherently about things. The mind is always about things. Stated another way, physical processes (understood without teleology) have no purpose. Mental processes always have purpose. In fact, purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) is what defines the mind. And we see the same purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) in nature. Intentionality is a form of teleology. Both intentionality and teleology are goal-directedness — intentionality is directedness in thought, and teleology is directedness in nature. Mind and teleology are both manifestations of purpose in nature. The mind is, within nature, the same kind of process that directs nature. In this sense, eliminative materialism is necessary if a materialist is to maintain a non-teleological Darwinian metaphysical perspective. It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts. The link between intentionality and teleology, and the undeniability of teleology, is even more clear if we consider our inescapable belief that other people have minds. The inference that other people have minds based on their purposeful (intentional-teleological) behavior, which is obviously correct and is essential to living a sane life, can be applied to our understanding of nature as well. Just as we know that other people have purposes (intentionality), we know just as certainly that nature has purposes (teleology). In a sense, intelligent design is the recognition of the same purpose-teleology-intentionality in nature that we recognize in ourselves and others. Teleology and intentionality are certainly the inferences to be drawn from the obvious purposeful arrangement of parts in nature, but I (as a loyal Thomist!) believe that teleology and intentionality are manifest in an even more fundamental way in nature. Any goal-directed natural change is teleological, even if purpose and arrangement of parts is not clearly manifest. The behavior of a single electron orbiting a proton is teleological, because the motion of the electron hews to specific ends (according to quantum mechanics). A pencil falling to the floor behaves teleologically (it does not fall up, or burst into flame, etc.). Purposeful arrangement of parts is teleology on an even more sophisticated scale, but teleology exists in even the most basic processes in nature. Physics is no less teleological than biology. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/teleology_and_t/

bornagain77

Bornagain77/2

^^^^^^^ Says the mindless meat robot which has been named Seversky! ?

Both you and Lewis ignore the fact that Lewis's argument can be turned against his God. If not being designed somehow makes our thinking untrustworthy then the same must be true of God since - according to believers - He was not designed and has no purpose. So even if there were your God, His thinking could not be trusted so neither can ours. Except, so what? We naturalists/atheists know we are fallible, imperfect and our thinking is not always reliable. But neither is it always unreliable. Either way, it's al we've got so we'll just have to make the best of it. Seversky

@ seversky you are right, no it doesn’t make it better, but it’s shows that naturalist are just as guilty of the same crap @ chuckdarwin your opinion is equally childish and much dumber nice empty add AaronS1978

ChuckieD, do you think that C.S.Lewis, if he were alive on earth today, (instead of being in heaven), should actually be offended by the sounds that a mindless meat puppet, such as yourself, makes?

“You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today” - Jerry Coyne (Science Uprising 02) – No, You’re Not a Robot Made Out of Meat – video https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20

bornagain77

Re #2 Always good to re-experience the adolescent thought process of CS Lewis as he attempts to caricature a “godless” universe..... chuckdarwin

Earth to seversky: Using our KNOWLEDGE of cause and effect relationships is not a gap argument. ET

^^^^^^^ Says the mindless meat robot which has been named Seversky! :)

“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” - C.S. Lewis

bornagain77

Accusing naturalists of "scientism of the gaps" doesn't make "God of the gaps" any better. Seversky