Please present a compelling explanation why naturalism is true

[Loki]

Originally Posted by jireh

useful energy, according to the second law of thermodynamics winds down, and and cannot produce work endlessly. Its transformed into heat. therefore, if there would exist a multiverse since eternity, we would be in a state of heat death.

Oh Noes!!1! It's the heat death malarky again. Can't be bothered responding so I'll just C&P an informative post someone made earlier elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Jireh

God is not bent to materia/energy, and its characteristics, rather he is the creator of it.

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Logic please

Excuse me, jireh. As a mod, I pretty much have to read all of your bollox. It's part of the job, unfortunately.

Mod note: And as a general matter, do not presume to tell me, or any of our members, where they may or may not post. Understood?

As a mod, you should really not encourage a member to post offtopic things.
this topic is NOT about theists present evidence for their case.

understood ?

[Logic please]

Originally Posted by jireh

As a mod, you should really not encourage a member to post offtopic things.
this topic is NOT about theists present evidence for their case.

understood ?

Evidence where this occurred please, or retract.

[Darwinsbulldog]

Originally Posted by jireh

well, if you want to remain ignorant in regard of our origin, fine with me. I look for one. I want to understand things. Find answers.....

Your reading comprehension is at an all-time low. How does the statement "the universe does not owe one an explanation" translate "to a lack of curiosity/interesting in finding any explanations that are available?"

Apart from that, you seem interested in ANY explanation, even ones totally devoid of logic or evidence.

[Darwinsbulldog]

Originally Posted by jireh

it depends what meaning you atribute to the word faith. there are several ones.

Oh. please, enlighten me!

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Loki

Once again jireh shows that he is unable to grasp the concept of an analogy.

Again I stress that people should read jireh's previous work, where they will find him making exactly the same assertions and will also find those assertions effectively smashed by others, usually on numerous occasions.

oh really ? could you point out, where, and proove you are not just making empty assertions ?

I also notice he has conveniently ignored my previous rebuttal of his wibble and has yet to provide a definition for "information" or "design".

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...-for-a-creator

In July 2006, a team of scientists representing various scientific disciplines met to evaluate a definition of information proposed by information scientist Dr. Werner Gitt,4 which is precise and corresponds very well to human languages and machine languages. The team proposed that this definition be called Universal Definition of Information (UDI) and agreed that there are four essential attributes that define it:

Code (syntax): Information within all communications systems contains a code. A code contains a set of symbols and rules for using letters, words, phrases, or symbols to represent something else. One reason for coding is to enable communication. Examples of codes would be the English alphabet, words, and syntax; hieroglyphics; or codes used in computers (for example, C, Fortran, or Cobol).

Meaning (semantics): Meaning enables communication by representing real objects or concepts with specific symbols, words, or phrases. For example, the word chair is not the physical chair but represents it. Likewise, the name “Bob” is not the physical person but represents the real person. When words are associated with real objects or concepts, it gives the word meaning.
For example, aichr and Bbo do not have meaning because they do not represent any real object or concept. However, if in the future one of these character strings were to represent a real object or concept, it would have meaning. Prior to the computer Internet age, the word blog had no meaning; today it is associated with a web page that serves as a personal log (derived from web log) of thoughts or activities. It can also mean a discussion community about personal issues. Another new word with meaning is simplistic. New words are continually being designated with meaning.

Expected Action (pragmatics): Expected action conveys an implicit or explicit request or command to perform a given task. For example, in the statement, “Go to the grocery store and buy some chocolate chips,” the expected action is that someone will go to the store. This does not mean the action will actually happen, but it is expected to happen.

Intended Purpose (apobetics): Intended purpose is the anticipated goal that can be achieved by the performance of the expected action(s). For example, in the statement, “Go to the grocery store and buy some chocolate chips,” the intended purpose might be to bake and eat chocolate chip cookies.

These four essential attributes specify the definition domain for information. A definition of information (Universal Definition of Information) was formulated by using these four attributes:
An encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose.

http://www.designinference.com/docum...SK_article.htm

How a designer gets from thought to thing is, at least in broad strokes, straightforward: (1) A designer conceives a purpose. (2) To accomplish that purpose, the designer forms a plan. (3) To execute the plan, the designer specifies building materials and assembly instructions. (4) Finally, the designer or some surrogate applies the assembly instructions to the building materials.

He arbitrarily draws a distinction between information as found in crystals or sand dunes or shit and that found in DNA and provides no metric for measuring design.

have a read to understand the fundamental differece between natural atterns, and codified information :

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/re...ligent-design/

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Logic please

Evidence where this occurred please, or retract.

how about you read your post no.159 ?

You're the one effectively claiming a god, or some "intelligent" causation. Burden of proof lies with you.

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Darwinsbulldog

Apart from that, you seem interested in ANY explanation, even ones totally devoid of logic or evidence.

why is a theistic explanation devoid of logic ?

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Darwinsbulldog

Oh. please, enlighten me!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

[Logic please]

Oh... nearly forgot. Nice tu quoque, there.

Originally Posted by jireh

how about you read your post no.159 ?

Hmmm, I think that advice applies in reverse. Here is my post:

Originally Posted by Logic please

You're the one effectively claiming a god, or some "intelligent" causation. Burden of proof lies with you. (my later emphasis)

...in response to you:

Originally Posted by jireh

yes, shure. I have many. According to empirical evidence, all codified information needs a intellent mind. There is no mechanism known to men, that produces codified information, than only minds. So does music notes, a computer code, written language. DNA contains also codified information. Where did it come from ?

Didn't notice the emphasised bits, jireh? Are you denying that you are effectively arguing for intelligent causation of DNA?

Or is it merely the latest in a long line of "jireh" diversions, red-herrings and muddying the waters, anything to avoid dealing with our questions, and admitting your complete paucity of evidentiary basis?

Keep diggin, fella.