Please present a compelling explanation why naturalism is true

[Goldenmane]

On Irreducible Complexity (because I didn't see this addressed in this thread in this way):

Irreducible complexity, as a concept used by those who would argue for gods, is a stolen phrase. It was a phrase originally coined by some bloke whose name I can't remember right now, in a piece in which he both coined the phrase and debunked the sort of thing goddists use it for, all in a piece.

Basically, irreducible complexity refers to something in essence like an arch, which cannot exist in part. Try building half an arch. The fucking thing will fall down, sure as shit. You can't have half an arch, and goddists would say you can't have half an eye (you can, actually) or half a flagellum, or half of whatever their current flavour-of-the-month is.

But an arch can appear in several ways; most of them involve a surrounding structure which then is removed through one process or another. In that context, the answer to "What is half an arch?" is: "A fucking wall, you dick."

How do you build an arch? You start with a wall or similar structure, and you knock a great fucking hole in it (nature does this all the time) fortuitously in just the right place for the bits left over to settle together in a very strong arrangement.

What good is half an arch? Keeps the dickheads out.

[davo]

Originally Posted by Goldenmane

On Irreducible Complexity (because I didn't see this addressed in this thread in this way):
<snip>

Seriously, if you could like posts on this thing, my post now would not be needed

I lolled

[davo]

Originally Posted by Inedifix

P1: The chances of 'death by shark attack' are really low, 251.8 million to 1.
P2: It's just too hard to believe that someone could fall prey to these odds by pure random chance.
Conclusion: shark attacks are finely tuned by god...
.

OH SHIT YOU GAVE HIM MORE CUT/PASTE AMMO!

lol hahaha

I love checking out this thread

[stevebrooks]

Originally Posted by Goldenmane

and debunked the sort of thing goddists use it for, all in a piece.

What I really love aboout theists is the way they do skip and hop about. They say, this (thing A) is proof of god because it is irreducably complex, we say, here is the proof it is not irreducably complex, they then say, ok a bad example, here is (thing B), it is proof of god because it is irreducably complex, we say here is proof it is not etc etc.

And what I really love about it is, they only have to bring forward one genuine irreducably complex example to prove their point, but are unable to do so. You have to laugh sometimes in the face of such blind determination.

[DanDare]

Just to finish off, since Jireh has been reptured.

Originally Posted by jireh

would you ??

Jireh seems to feel here that because Jireh doesn't listen to anything, and because we don't agree with has pronouncements, that therefore we don't listen to things either. He is sadly, as with all his other beliefs it seems, wrong.

what did expand locally ?

Jireh now lays bare his lack of knowledge. The local expansion is an expansion of time-space. The big bang may (may is not a certainty signal J ) have been the budding off of our time-space.

these scientists must have got it all wrong then...
<snip>Reprehensible list of quote mines and crap from scientists who are religious despite the facts</snip>

That is the most dishonest piece of shit Jireh has pulled so far. Problem is he just cut and paste it and has no idea how dishonest it is. Jireh is just a brain dead parrot in this regard.

that does not change the fact that life exists on our planet, and that the universe is finely tuned to make this happen.

Mr Black dealt with this. You can't claim the universe is fine tuned for something that only works in an infinitesimally small part of the universe. That's just plain stupid talk.

one of trillions that would not cause no effect.

I would not not cause non understanding of the misapprehension myself.

oh, sure i do. You should thell that Dawkins, Crick, Carter, and many others...

Oh fuck off you arrogant, smarmy fuck! I notice Jireh has not even bothered to try and pull out quote mines for this ludicrous fucking irritating response.

that still does not mean the outcome will be a objective moral standard. The nazis thought kill jews was a benefit for the german society, but despite consensus amongst them, that was morally objectivly wrong.

There is no objective moral standard so its pointless going on about it. There is, however, an evolving moral consensus and it encompasses wider groups as time goes by within its circle of empathy. A theocratic movement, lead by the Jirehs of this world, could still spring up and wipe the rest of us out because lord fumble dick whispered in their ear to do so. There is no objective morality in that despite the fact that Jireh would claim there was.

[DanDare]

Oh, and his thing about bi-lipid layers being complex. Yes, they are. They are a product of a whole lot of mutation and natural selection. On the other hand single lipid layers form bubbles all the time without the assistance of internal molecular engines and they have just the right properties to kick start some, undoubtedly unstable, proto life chemistry within themselves.

[THWOTH]

Thus it was written. Thus shall it be.

Originally Posted by "The Book Of Jeff, Ch16:11-12

[11] And lo, it did come to pass, that he was banished from the Land Of Reason, and doomed to stumble for all eternity (or until his mum called him in for his tea) across the teleological wasteland, and which in his foolhardiness he had so desired.

[12] And though he did not realise that he was lost among his broken dream, neither did he realise the glories which he had forsaken just that he may cling to the rotting epistemic turds of his own earnest, though errant, cravings.

[Inedifix]

Jireh arrived here 'pretending' to want a debate. His behaviour shows that he wasn't in a listening or debating mood: fingers in ears, singing psalms, quote mining creo-babble, spouting unfounded nonsense, spitting out logical fallacies like an Uzi spits bullets. Ignoring every credible piece of evidence (which he'd asked for) that was put in front of him.

Looking back, I'm convinced his sole objective was to waste our time - he probably feels this is his calling in life. And as such, I'm sure he feels like he's won.

Of course the truth is, anyone who 'pretends' to be seeking knowledge in a vainglorious attempt to defend the indefensible, is a loser right from the start.

Originally Posted by Iseeyouthere

He would most likely fly into a building if his 'god' told him too. People like that are to be feared.

I think people like Jireh are mainly to be pitied. I'd say, 70% pity, 29% derision, maybe 1% fear of the "don't look at that weird dude in the corner, he might wander over" kind.

[Ce4or]

What I really love aboout theists is the way they do skip and hop about. They say, this (thing A) is proof of god because it is irreducably complex, we say, here is the proof it is not irreducably complex, they then say, ok a bad example, here is (thing B

Discursive "Whack a Mole"

[THWOTH]

The 'DNA is a code' argument seems a newish development in creationist apologetics. I've encountered several people who seem to be trying this argument out, and not quite getting to grips with it - as indeed Jireh completely failed to do.