Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Philosophy and God » Some questions for Atheists

Some questions for Atheists

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Some questions for Atheists on Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:27 am

Admin


Admin
Some questions for Atheists

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2408-some-questions-for-atheists

How can a proponent of philosophical naturalism provide a better worldview based on naturalism/strong atheism over a proponent of creationism / intelligent design ?  Anyone trying to explain the origin of our reality has to take into account following points :

1. What caused the universe to exist?
2. The universe works orderly based on physical laws.
3. The original conditions of the universe, the fundamental forces, our galaxy, and the earth are finely tuned to permit life. How comes?
4. Stars and planets exist
5. Life exists
6. Cells are complex factories, full of molecular machines, and assembly lines.
7. Cells use various codes and hierarchical levels of information, based on complex hardware/information processing machines ( computers )
8. Genes have two layers of codes and information
9. DNA has the highest information storage density physically  possible
10. Cells use metabolic pathways and literally manufacturing and production assembly lines
11. Cells are interdependent and irreducible complex ( a minimal genome, proteome, and metabolome size is required to give life a first go )
12. Cells are self-replicating
13. Cells have error detection and check mechanisms
14. Cells require homeostasis
15. There are 3 domains of life and the virus world. Biological cells and viruses are interdependent. There would be no viruses without life, and vice-versa
16. There is consciousness
17. There are objective moral values
18. Language, logic, reasoning, free will, and moral values are not grounded in physics.
19. How did DNA and amino acids arise?
20. How do irreducibly complex enzyme chains evolve?
21. How do we account for the origin of 116 distinct language families?
22. Why did cities suddenly appear all over the world between 3,000 and 1,000BC?
23. How is independent thought possible in a world ruled by chance and necessity?
24. How do we account for self-awareness?
25. How is free will possible in a material universe?
26. How do we account for conscience?
27. On what basis can we make moral judgments?
28. Why does suffering matter?
29. Why do human beings matter?
30. Why care about justice?
31. How do we account for the almost universal belief in the supernatural?
32. What is the evidence that the natural world is all there is?
33. How can we know if there is no conscious existence after death?
34. What accounts for the empty tomb, resurrection appearances, and growth of the church?
35. Is the Bible just fiction?



How do these facts support naturalism / strong atheism?

Creationism / ID is false, therefore, (strong) atheism is true.   This is one of the most frequent logical fallacies of atheists/skeptics/agnostics etc. That is called affirmative conclusion from a negative premise  This illicit negative occurs when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but one or two negative premises. Atheists must be able to present and adopt a well-articulated, thorough-going positive worldview based on positive evidence that results in good reasons to infer naturalism. What the debater must present, is a positive case for strong atheism by reference to the evidence that favors a naturalistic interpretation of reality. Asking to provide positive, compelling evidence that points to the fact that the natural world can have an origin on its own, is not the same as to ask for evidence that God does not exist. If atheists are going to argue that adequate answers exist without the need for God, they are at least going to have to provide sufficient reasons and explanations.

If we held the position that no deities are needed and that adequate answers exist based on natural causes on their own, without the need of a God, we are at least going to have to provide sufficient positive compelling explanations based on philosophical naturalism.  Some things happen because of an intelligent agency, some things don't.  Materialists don't believe in agency at all. So, how can this view be backed up rationally?  

This view implies that we need good answers of how absolutely nothing magically can turn into a Big Bang and a life-supporting universe and create the physical laws simultaneously, or if we propose that the universe is eternal in any kind of form, like a multiverse, oscillating universe etc. , and had no beginning;  how we can reach the present and now from eternity. If we add one event after the other starting now, whenever we stop, the timelapse will always be a defined timespan. How can we then reach now from ( past ) eternity by adding one event after the other? Furthermore, we have to explain how the second law of thermodynamics would be overcome. Since useful energy winds down, and the universe exists from eternity, we would have reached maximum entropy, and the universe would be in a state of heat death.

Then, its required that we  give good reasons of how random unguided forces  finetuned successfully the expansion of the Big Bang out of 10^55 attempts and possibilities ( that's a 10 with 55 zeroes ), the four fundamental forces like gravity, which strength  is finely tuned to a precision of  one of 14 billion billion billion settings, and hundreds of physical parameters, and the conditions to permit life on earth. It's not that life adapted to the universe. The parameters had to be finely tuned right from the start;  If not, no universe could exist at all.  How can life emerge from non-life and produce cells ?

The cell is an interdependent functional city. We state, “The cell is the most detailed and concentrated organizational structure known to humanity. It is a lively microcosmic city, with factories for making building supplies, packaging centers for transporting the supplies, trucks that move the materials along highways, communication devices, hospitals for repairing injuries, a massive library of information, power stations providing usable energy, garbage removal, walls for protection and city gates for allowing certain materials to come and go from the cell.” The notion of the theoretical first cell arising by natural causes is a perfect example of irreducible complexity. Life cannot exist without many numerous interdependent complex systems, each irreducibly complex on their own, working together to bring about a grand pageant for life to exist.

How could cells emerge through unguided, accidental random events, and luck was able to create  the storage device of information in DNA, transcription and translation machinery inside cells, invent an optimal genetic code, better and committing less errors  than one million alternatives, a translation system ( a genetic cipher, that equals to translation from English to Chinese ) , an incalculable amount of precise instructions to create the first  self-replicating cell with a minimal number of precisely dimensioned and fitting parts, precise energy supply where needed for various chemical reactions, a error check and repair system all along the cellular processes, and  millions of amazingly diverse species with the ability to evolve and adapt to the environment, and explain the emergence of conscient intelligent minds from inanimate  matter. Furthermore, we have to give good reasons why it could be justified in exceptional circumstances to torture, rape and kill little babies for fun. If we can't, we would grant that absolute, objective moral values exist. Since they are prescriptive, we would have to grant the existence of a moral giver or moral code prescriber above us.

We can also not afford us to commit the logical fallacy to make affirmative conclusions based on a negative premise. This illicit negative occurs when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but one or two negative premises. We need to be able to present and adopt a well-articulated, thorough-going positive worldview based on positive evidence that results in good reasons to infer naturalism. What we have to present, is a positive case for  strong atheism by reference to the evidence that favors a naturalistic interpretation of reality. Asking to provide positive, compelling evidence that points to the fact that the natural world can have an origin on its own, is not the same as to ask for evidence that God does not exist. If we are going to argue that adequate answers exist without the need for a creative intelligent powerful agency with a will, we are at least going to have to provide sufficient naturalistic explanations.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum