Patrickatheism

If God exists, atheism is false. Thus atheism is dependent upon the truth of whether or not God exists.

Imagine a world in which it is true that God exists and it is also the case that atheism is true.

This is the world of Patrickatheism.

762 Replies to “Patrickatheism”

  1. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    dazz,

    Just one mans opinion but if you are going to accuse someone of intellectual dishonesty you might want to have your facts straight.

  2. dazz dazz
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd:
    dazz,

    Just one mans opinion but if you are going to accuse someone of intellectual dishonesty you might want to have your facts straight.

    Oh, just watch him in that vid go on about junk DNA. He’s either ignorant or a liar. I’m going with the later and I’m pretty sure it’s a safe bet

  3. Robin Robin
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd:
    Robin,

    These mechanisms are evidence that life uses mechanisms in multiple applications.This infers design.

    Umm…I do not think you mean that. “Infer” is something humans do in terms of assessing a conclusion. I’m guessing you meant “imply”. Imply is to express something indirectly.

    Be that as it may, mechanisms, in and of themselves have no direct relationship with design, particularly non-human design. Once again you are begging the question.

    Let’s take two examples: both hurricane and snowflake generation are the result of mechanisms. As far as I can tell, there appears to be universal consensus that neither is designed and that both are simply the result of natural processes. Are you suggesting otherwise simply because humans design leads to mechanisms and thus all mechanisms must come from design?

    Human design uses mechanisms in multiple applications. Wheels and engines are examples. This is not question begging because I am not arguing I am using the design inference to help find how a biochemical process works.

    It’s still question begging because there is no legitimate extrapolation from human designed mechanisms and use and and non-human designed mechanisms and use. In other words, the “design inference” is only valid with regards to inferring human design. Any other claim to non-human design is question begging by definition

  4. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    Robin,

    Let’s take two examples: both hurricane and snowflake generation are the result of mechanisms. As far as I can tell, there appears to be universal consensus that neither is designed and that both are simply the result of natural processes. Are you suggesting otherwise simply because humans design leads to mechanisms and thus all mechanisms must come from design?

    This is an interesting question. I could argue this either way but lets take the tact that the laws of physics and chemistry were designed, as an argument, then every mechanism we see is the product of design.

  5. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    dazz,

    Oh, just watch him in that vid go on about junk DNA. He’s either ignorant or a liar. I’m going with the later and I’m pretty sure it’s a safe bet

    Are you prepared to debate the quantity of human DNA that is junk? If not, how do you know which side is correct?

  6. petrushka
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd: Are you prepared to debate the quantity of human DNA that is junk? If not, how do you know which side is correct?

    You go first. Everyone knows the genetic load argument, so assume it has been made and start there.

  7. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    Robin,

    It’s still question begging because there is no legitimate extrapolation from human designed mechanisms and use and and non-human designed mechanisms and use.

    Why can’t you infer non human designs from human designs? We can compare and contrast DNA repair to DRAM (computer memory) repair.

  8. petrushka
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd: Why can’t you infer non human designs from human designs?

    Really bad analogy. Human designs do not reproduce, do not have mutating gnomes, do not evolve as populations.

  9. Robin Robin
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd:
    Robin,

    This is an interesting question.I could argue this either way but lets take the tact that the laws of physics and chemistry were designed, as an argument, then every mechanism we see is the product of design.

    I don’t know what you mean by the fact that the laws of physics and chemistry were designed. If by that you mean that a deity designed said laws, then that would be a belief, not a fact. If you’re suggesting something else, such simply raises the question (that FMM is so fond of): how do you know?

    Be that as it may, if this is you’re fallback argument, then you’re not just offering, but embracing whole hog the ol’ begging the question (and how!). Basically such a position boils your earlier statements down to: all mechanisms are the result of design because I believe all mechanisms are designed. Ooo boy!

  10. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    petrushka,

    Really bad analogy. Human designs do not reproduce, do not have mutating gnomes, do not evolve as populations

    So I am looking at something more complex then a human design and cannot infer it is designed? If it was less complex I could see your point.

  11. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    Robin,

    Be that as it may, if this is you’re fallback argument, then you’re not just offering, but embracing whole hog the ol’ begging the question (and how!). Basically such a position boils your earlier statements down to: all mechanisms are the result of design because I believe all mechanisms are designed. Ooo boy

    This is not the argument. You are creating a straw-man. I am inferring design from multiple inferences of what I am observing in nature. Begging the question is starting from the conclusion. I am starting from the observation.

  12. Robin Robin
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd:
    Robin,

    Why can’t you infer non human designs from human designs?

    Well, aside from the fact that such requires one to assume their conclusion (fallacious logic), let’s go with a more practical consideration. For starters, human design represents a very specific (and predictable) process based almost entirely on constraints. Humans are constrained by a variety of conditions: time, resources, technology, the manufacturing process, waste (particularly heat), energy and the associated sources (and conversion costs!), entropy, communication (what exactly is design if not the description for how to manufacture or otherwise realize an imagined product?), form and function, diminishing returns, trade-offs (alas, human designers found out really quick that products cannot do everything; certain functions negate other functions), just to name a few things. We know quite specifically why humans have these constraints (and how, specifically, they impact our designs). We know nothing about non-human designers and even less about any potential constraints such might face. A little hard then to presume we could infer anything about (let alone spot) their products.

    As a very real implication for instance: any “designer” that had no resource constraints would never need to design anything in the first place (think about that for just a moment. What exactly would such a “designer” need to plan for?) As such, what would “design theory” ever tell you about such an entity’s “work”? How could one ever infer design from something that was not designed? Such makes no sense.

    Bottom line, there’s no way to even begin to assess anything but human design from other human design. The way we do things cannot be extrapolated to any other entity because human “design” is not (or at least cannot be assessed as) a universal approach to product development. It works for us, but that’s because we have ridiculous limits; nothing says all other non-humans have our same limitations, thus there’s no way to even remotely imagine any similarity (or even analogy) to our products.

    We can compare and contrast DNA repair to DRAM (computer memory) repair.

    Such is simply begging the question as noted. What do you know about the constraints faced by a supposed designer of DNA? Nothing. As such, you have no way to actually assess the actual design or whether it truly is a product of design at all. The best you can say is, if humans could create biochemical products, we might come up with something analogous to DNA. The might there kills any such argument though, because really, there’s just no way to say with any real honesty.

  13. GlenDavidson
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd:
    petrushka,

    So I am looking at something more complex then a human design and cannot infer it is designed?If it was less complex I could see your point.

    How about something appearing less (biologically) evolved than life?

    That’s one criterion I’d insist on for inferring design.

    Glen Davidson

  14. Robin Robin
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd:
    petrushka,

    So I am looking at something more complex then a human design and cannot infer it is designed?

    The word “complex” is rather vague and meaningless here. How are measuring the “complexity” of biological systems compared to…say…an F-22 or an iPhone?

    But again, this rather misses the point: Unless you can actually assess the design (rather than a supposed product of design), all inferences to design are just question begging.

    If it was less complex I could see your point.

  15. petrushka
    Ignored
    says:

    The design inference was best stated by Paley 213 years ago, and the origin of biological design explicated by Darwin about 160 years ago.

    Unless Colewd has some private knowledge of how the sky fairy designer works, and some specific instances of magical intervention, he is simply displaying his ignorance of biology and of history.

    If colewd is arguing front loading or deism, he could be right, but irrelevant. Even the radical atheist Jerry Coyne could be described as arguing for a completely determined universe, but he also acknowledges that evolution is the best description of natural history.

  16. dazz dazz
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd:
    dazz,

    Are you prepared to debate the quantity of human DNA that is junk?If not, how do you know which side is correct?

    I can parrot the pro’s arguments but what would be the point? I’m no biologist. Axe is, and even though he admits he’s not an expert on junk DNA, he makes the same ridiculous arguments every IDist makes: like claiming that scientists thought DNA coded for proteins or else was junk. This is demonstrably false. Axe is a molecular biologist, one of those you claim are the top dogs of ID not-a-theorists. I don’t think he’s that ignorant so the only explanation is that he must be lying

    Axe clearly knows about regulatory genes. There’s NO excuse for him to make those retarded claims other than tell potential buyers of his books exactly what they want to hear: remember that was in response to some creo gentleman in the audience asking about jDNA:

    https://youtu.be/SC9Hx3WpsCk?t=4694

    Axe knows full well the kind of claptrap his audience is expecting and he won’t hesitate to deliver

  17. Robin Robin
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd:
    Robin,

    This is not the argument.You are creating a straw-man.

    Nope…no strawman. Here’s exactly what you wrote:

    I could argue this either way but lets take the tact that the laws of physics and chemistry were designed, as an argument, then every mechanism we see is the product of design.

    If that’s you’re argument, then here’s your syllogism:

    Premise 1: physics and chemistry are the product of design

    Premise 2: all objects are the product of physics and chemistry (and thus the product of design)

    Conclusion: All objects are designed

    There is no way around that not being question begging.

    I am inferring design from the flexibility of the components that make up the universe

    Which is question begging by definition

    I am inferring design from multiple inferences of what I am observing in nature.Begging the question is starting from the conclusion.I am starting from the observation.

    Not exactly. Question begging simply means you are assuming your conclusion (that at least one of your premises relies on the truth of your conclusion.) Which is exactly what you are doing: you are assuming the truth of non-human design as part of your premise; that you even imagine there could be such an analogy when you really have no concept of non-human designing in the first place *requires* that you assume that premise.

    It just doesn’t work.

  18. dazz dazz
    Ignored
    says:

    I wonder if colewd thinks human embryological development is some sort of supernatural process. It goes from a simple zygote to a full blown human being. We see nature producing the kind of complexity that goes into building a human body every day. This clearly falsifies the complexity argument: nature can build complexity, ID is dead on departure

  19. petrushka
    Ignored
    says:

    The key problem that no junkers have to deal with is that in most mammalian genomes, most of the DNA seems to be sequence independent.

    From a programmer’s perspective, that’s a pretty sophisticated “code.”

    A code that transmits information regardless of how the characters are changed or scrambled.

  20. Robin Robin
    Ignored
    says:

    I have heard some theists claim that metamorphosis (of butterflies and moths; don’t think most know of other kinds, but whatever…) is an example of God’s direct interaction in this world. That just CAN’T be the result of “nature processes”! (To be sure, it is a rather incredible and bizarre way of going through life.) Maybe that’s Cole’s perspective too…no idea.

    Personally I see such phenomenon as an example of the incredible morphological flexibility of biology. If that type of phenomenon (and similar such phenomena) doesn’t convince you that evolutionary modifications, particularly on the macro scale, are ho hum…you really haven’t paid attention to such things.

  21. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Alan Fox: It’s a while ago and the ARN forum has disappeared

    Good old ARN. Man.

  22. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    petrushka: The design inference was best stated by Paley 213 years ago, and the origin of biological design explicated by Darwin about 160 years ago.

    Darwin never attempted to explain the origin life. Biological design that depends on biological design doesn’t explain biological design.

  23. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    petrushka: Really bad analogy. Human designs do not reproduce, do not have mutating gnomes, do not evolve as populations.

    Sure they do. That’s the whole point of GA’s.

    Also, even if what you say is true, what are you going to do when human designs do those things, admit that you were wrong for ever offering that as an excuse?

  24. petrushka
    Ignored
    says:

    So the real god of the gaps lives in OOL.

    Is that the last battleground?

    I just like knowing where the goalposts have come to rest.

    It seems to be different for each evolution critic.

  25. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Patrick: b) objective, empirical evidence for such an entity

    My cat.

    If you don’t have any good reason for rejecting that my cat is God I can certainly understand how that could be the case. You can’t even examine a cat and say with any certainty “not God.” Sort of puts paid to your demands for “objective empirical evidence.”

  26. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Alan Fox: Who’s left that might be considered a heavyweight on ID?

    Salvador!

  27. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    petrushka: Everyone knows the genetic load argument…

    Everyone does not understand “genetic load” and those that do claim to understand are probably wrong. Why don’t you start an OP on genetic load and the genetic load argument? That would be interesting. Betting you won’t.

  28. petrushka
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: Everyone does not understand “genetic load” and those that do claim to understand are probably wrong. Why don’t you start an OP on genetic load and the genetic load argument? That would be interesting. Betting you won’t.

    It’s already in progress. State your take on it and I’ll use as the basis of an OP.

  29. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    petrushka: So the real god of the gaps lives in OOL. Is that the last battleground? I just like knowing where the goalposts have come to rest.It seems to be different for each evolution critic.

    You’re the one who brought up Paley, not me. Do you think Paley was a prophet?

    Is it your belief that Paley was arguing against Darwinian evolution?

  30. petrushka
    Ignored
    says:

    Besides, I already stated my take. Tell me how I am wrong, and I’ll be glad to use your input in an OP.

  31. Patrick Patrick
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd:
    Patrick,

    Based on past experience with theists, the usual argument is along the lines of “There’s no way to explain that without (my) god!” A standard argument from incredulity.

    I got it.
    I am inferring design and defining God as the creator of the universe.

    Once again, that is not a definition of what your god is, it is merely an unsubstantiated claim about something your god allegedly did.

    I think your criticism of limited definition is valid but it is interesting that if we limit definitions then the creation argument appears to be a reasonable alternative a to purely natural explanation based on what we can observe.

    I don’t know what you mean by “limit definitions”. Until you define what you mean by “god” any claims you make about that entity are nonsensical.

  32. Patrick Patrick
    Ignored
    says:

    petrushka:
    So the real god of the gaps lives in OOL.

    Is that the last battleground?

    I just like knowing where the goalposts have come to rest.

    It seems to be different for each evolution critic.

    colewd seems to have retreated back to the origin of physics. That should be safe for a bit.

  33. Patrick Patrick
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: My cat.

    If you don’t have any good reason for rejecting that my cat is God I can certainly understand how that could be the case. You can’t even examine a cat and say with any certainty “not God.” Sort of puts paid to your demands for “objective empirical evidence.”

    As already discussed in this thread, there are two reasons why I lack belief in any god or gods:

    1) I have never been presented with a definition of “god” that is internally consistent, not contradicted by existing objective, empirical evidence, and within the broad range of what most people would consider to be a god.

    2) I have never been presented with objective, empirical evidence for any such entity.

    Please provide your definition of “god” that meets the first criteria and includes your cat. Then post pictures.

  34. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    Patrick,

    I don’t know what you mean by “limit definitions”. Until you define what you mean by “god” any claims you make about that entity are nonsensical.

    I have defined God as the creator of the Universe. In order to refute my argument you do not accept my definition vs. engaging the argument. I must conclude that it is hard to argue against an entity that is the creator of the universe
    Robin,

    .

  35. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    dazz,

    I wonder if colewd thinks human embryological development is some sort of supernatural process. It goes from a simple zygote to a full blown human being. We see nature producing the kind of complexity that goes into building a human body every day. This clearly falsifies the complexity argument: nature can build complexity, ID is dead on departure

    I think this does the exact opposite of what you want to argue.
    I

  36. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd: I think this does the exact opposite of what you want to argue.

    Why? When does the supernatural process take place?

    If your argument is that god set up the rules such that nature can produce complexity like biology then just say as much and don’t make out you can detect that design in the actual biology too.

  37. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    Robin,

    Premise 1: physics and chemistry are the product of design

    Premise 2: all objects are the product of physics and chemistry (and thus the product of design)

    Conclusion: All objects are designed

    If premise 1 is assumed you are correct. If premise one is inferred by the evidence then you are incorrect.

  38. dazz dazz
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd:
    dazz,

    I think this does the exact opposite of what you want to argue.
    I

    Really? Look at all the irreducible complexity that gets built in a gradual, step-wise natural process. No intelligence involved.

    Game.
    Set.
    Match.

    Thanks for playing tho

    (moving goalposts in 3…2…1…)

  39. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd: I must conclude that it is hard to argue against an entity that is the creator of the universe

    Well I tell you what. Tell it to meet me in the playground and we’ll have a fist fight. Whoever is left standing, wins!

  40. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd: I have defined God as the creator of the Universe.

    You can’t argue against definitions. What did your god do other then create the universe? You seem to say it interferes with biology – how?

  41. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain,

    Why? When does the supernatural process take place?

    The origin of the biochemistry that could build a human. Or two humans to get the process started.

  42. dazz dazz
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd:
    Robin,

    If premise 1 is assumed you are correct.If premise one is inferred by the evidence then you are incorrect.

    Inferences in science are done by following logical conclusions from theories or hypothesis with enough explanatory power to make predictions. Arguments from analogy are generally fallacious claptrap. Guess what category does the “design inference” fall into?

  43. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Patrick: Please provide your definition of “god” that meets the first criteria and includes your cat.

    Yes, by your own admission, your demands for objective empirical evidence are nonsense and are not to be taken seriously. You can’t even figure out whether my cat is God.

    You have no empirical “God test” and you know it. So now you want definitions so that you can apply your vacuous empiricism to them. God for you.

  44. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    We’re finally seeing just how useless Patrickatheism is and how it is not lack of belief, but rather disbelief.

  45. Patrick Patrick
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd:

    I don’t know what you mean by “limit definitions”. Until you define what you mean by “god” any claims you make about that entity are nonsensical.

    I have defined God as the creator of the Universe.

    And I have pointed out at least twice that you are making a claim about something your god did, not providing a definition of what it is.

    In order to refute my argument youdo not accept my definition vs.engaging the argument.I must conclude that it is hard to argue against an entity that is the creator of the universe

    You haven’t made an argument. You have no definition of your terms which makes it impossible to provide evidence to support the existence of whatever it is you mean by “god”.

  46. Patrick Patrick
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung:

    Please provide your definition of “god” that meets the first criteria and includes your cat.

    Yes, by your own admission, your demands for objective empirical evidence are nonsense and are not to be taken seriously. You can’t even figure out whether my cat is God.

    You’re the one making the claim, it’s up to you to define your terms. If you can define “god” in such a way that it includes your cat and would be considered a reasonable definition of the word by most other people that use it, we can proceed to the evidence portion of the show.

    If, on the other hand, you’re just playing silly buggers, that’s good to know too.

    You have no empirical “God test” and you know it.

    I don’t need one. I’m not the one claiming such a thing exists.

  47. Robin Robin
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd:
    Robin,

    If premise 1 is assumed you are correct.If premise one is inferred by the evidence then you are incorrect.

    But you are assuming it…right here:

    …but lets take the tact that the laws of physics and chemistry were designed, as an argument, then every mechanism we see is the product of design.

    You haven’t yet tried to argue (never mind support) the contention that the above is an inferred. How could you even begin to infer such?

  48. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    Robin,

    You haven’t yet tried to argue (never mind support) the contention that the above is an inferred. How could you even begin to infer such?

    I agree with you here.

  49. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    Patrick,

    And I have pointed out at least twice that you are making a claim about something your god did, not providing a definition of what it is.

    If we are talking about Thomas Edison that created the electric light bulb. Why can’t I define him as the creator of the lightbulb. Or James Klerk Maxwell as the creator of the mathematical model for electro magnetism. Lets say I don’t know who the creator of electromagnetism is but I have seen the equations. Can I then infer that electromagnetism mathematics was the product of design and then define someone as the creator of electromagnetism?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.