Please present a compelling explanation why naturalism is true

[DanDare]

Originally Posted by jireh

and how did they assemble the first time together to be able to start the copy process ???

Simple monomers, easily produced in pre biotic earth conditions and also, as we have discovered, abundant in space, can be drawn into lipid layer vesicles and ligated while held to the inside surface. Under those conditions simple replicators form fairly easily. As I said they are mostly unstable but, as they remain inside the bubble even when they fall apart the proto cell has a higher concentration of the necessary parts than the solution it drifts in. This concentrating effects raises the likely hood of auto catalytic systems to the level that, in a hot pond it would on average only take a few thousand years to form the first more stable replicators, after which natural selection becomes a more important filter than chemical attractor states.

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Logic please

Jireh, if you really wanted to stick to the original topic, you shouldn't have been the one to take it OT with "objective morals" (for example), should you? Trying to bail out of your topic extensions now, by bleating about OT when people reply, looks pretty disingenuous, no?

Fine with me. How about we all get back, and stick to the question of this thread ? we can start from scratch. The question therefore goes to the participants.

Please provide compelling answers, how naturalism can account for

- the existence of the universe
- the existence of the fine tuning in the universe
- the existence of chemistry to produce life
- the existence of life
- the existence of objective moral values
- the existence of sex
- the existence of consciousness
- the existence of will

[Logic please]

Originally Posted by jireh

well , as said, if the participants do not like me to post outside sources , and demand me to write all answers by myself, i must disappoint you. That won't happen. If you are insatisfied with that, you are free to choose someone else to debate.

Your clarification that you're not requesting a formal debate is noted. This thread thus continues, as-is.

Jireh, I won't accept that strawmanning misrepresentation. No-one has said that you can't use outside sources, TGBL infact requires credible external support and references for your assertions. But that's what they are - support only. Not a replacement for your own arguments. And you are required to know and understand what you are posting, before you post it.

And you have singularly failed to demonstrate this, which is why you are being asked to explain your posted c&p material, in your own words.

So far, you've been unable to do so. And bluntly, if you don't understand your own material, that is not our problem. You should expect to be called on this, every single time.

[Iseeyouthere]

Originally Posted by jireh

BTW. what does the canaanites debate have to do with explaining the initial question of this thread, and furthermore with the existence of God ?

I'm sorry, I thought it was my turn to go off-topic... still your turn?

Originally Posted by jireh

well , as said, if the participants do not like me to post outside sources , and demand me to write all answers by myself, i must disappoint you. That won't happen. If you are insatisfied with that, you are free to choose someone else to debate.

Anyone can post crap and run.
What is shows is that you don't understand what you are posting. You don't explain it. You don't try and show you understand it.

Its rude, because I don't see myself talking to an individual... I feel like I am reading a book thats had newspaper clipping glued poorly in... each with half the story missing or the stories not matching up.

And... stated by you:

Originally Posted by jireh

Fine. Since i have no time, to answer all participants here by myself, the moderator can pick just one participant, and i will do the best i can to answer his questions by myself. It will be a one by one debate.

So... whats it going to be... keep digging? Or debate?

[Iseeyouthere]

Originally Posted by jireh

Fine with me. How about we all get back, and stick to the question of this thread ? we can start from scratch. The question therefore goes to the participants.

Please provide compelling answers, how naturalism can account for

- the existence of the universe
- the existence of the fine tuning in the universe
- the existence of chemistry to produce life
- the existence of life
- the existence of objective moral values
- the existence of sex
- the existence of consciousness
- the existence of will

What do these mean to you?

[DanDare]

I know you don't listen, but oh well:

Originally Posted by jireh

The universe most probably had a beginning - therefore a cause.

False - the universe does not have to have a cause. That is a category error in your argument. The universe is the set of all things. It does not have to behave like the things it contains. Also the universe probably did not have a beginning, only the local expansion did.

Originally Posted by jireh

The universe is finely tuned to life - therefore a tuner

False - To begin with, the universe is not finely tuned to life. 99.9999999999999% of the universe is hostile to and devoid of life. Secondly, if you throw a deck of cards in the air, however they land will be an arrangement of cards but there is nothing "finely tuned" about it, its just one of the possibilities. Some subset of those possibilities are arrangements that we might recognise as being "in order" but that is only special to us, not the cards.

Originally Posted by jireh

Life needed complex , specified information as origin - therefore a intelligent mind

False - there is simply no evidence that life need this at all. You are pulling this assertion out of your arse.

Originally Posted by jireh

Morality is prescriptive - therefore a moral giver.

False - morality is grown organically amongst groups of people, and some learn to think about it, a process known as ethics, to come up with moral positions that better suit group outcomes. There is no law giver. Any such single source of morality would produce bad consequences for those obedient to it, as they would not have been part of the process of defining the outcome, so the concept is awful.

[Logic please]

Originally Posted by jireh

Fine with me. How about we all get back, and stick to the question of this thread ? we can start from scratch. The question therefore goes to the participants.

Please provide compelling answers, how naturalism can account for

- the existence of the universe
- the existence of the fine tuning in the universe
- the existence of chemistry to produce life
- the existence of life
- the existence of objective moral values
- the existence of sex
- the existence of consciousness
- the existence of will

Not a chance.

AFAIAC, you forfeited any putative right to demand this, by:

- posting the "now allegedly" OT material yourself originally and repeatedly, and;
- freely admitting that you were never going to accept compelling (or any) evidence for naturalism, or anything else, from us anyway.

If you had the ability to post that material, it would be completely inequitable to not allow it to be replied to, wouldn't you agree?

Of course, others are free to address your most recent post, if they wish.

Any other questions?

@Icey: I note that jireh has already rejected the notion of a formal debate, thanks. Please see my post, above.

[Logic please]

Originally Posted by jireh

Oh Morality is prescriptive - therefore a moral giver.

Uh-uh, jireh.

If you want to reintroduce a moral component to your "argument", I will pursue you for a proper reply to my unaddressed post, 'K?

You don't get to substantively ignore it, and then merrily skip along like nothing happened.

[Iseeyouthere]

Originally Posted by Logic please

@Icey: I note that jireh has already rejected the notion of a formal debate, thanks. Please see my post, above.

Damn.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Originally Posted by Iseeyouthere

Damn.

I cannot understand why the hell anybody would want to punish themselves with such a debate. It will be link, link, copy, link, paste, link, and other rubbish from the other side, who to be honest appears to me as if he is smoking weed every five minutes.