WTF? Human vision has not evolved meaningfully since the 6th century B.C.E. when the Greeks first realized the earth cannot be flat. The change in our knowledge was not due to a change in appearance but insight.

(If you seriously believe the earth may be flat, this probably explains my difficulty in getting through to you earlier; if I ever did.)

Ooh... if you seriously believe in flying spaghetti monster... harr harr

Sorry for the semi-trolling yesterday.

I find what Jib is saying very fascinating. The fact that he's actually at a point where he claims he can't see a single decent argument for atheism (strong or weak) is mind blowing to me (because he has above average intelligence).

It's also quite fascinating how he's convinced himself that growing up in a Christian household made it more likely he wouldn't become a Christian than the other way around.

I'm not pointing this out in an attempt to embarrass him or slander him or anything like that. Just giving my opinion on the matter which I don't expect anyone to particularly care about.

Most of all, it's amazing to me that he keeps comparing the universe to a watch, or some random "machine" made of parts that we've seen before and know to be created by human intelligence. (not even going to touch the cat example :/)

I dunno, it's not like I haven't thought of this before but I don't think I'll ever get over someone as smart as him making such an erroneous comparison.

wtf indeed...

I think that claiming that our intuition regarding the universe is too faulty to be trusted is a simple strawman.
Because regarding the origin of the universe, we are not left to intuition alone as a guide.
Perhaps at one time, it was a fact that intuition was all we had; or philosophical arguments.
But this is not the case we are presented with today.
We have arrived at a steady-state understanding of the universe.
We have accumulated evidence that point to an origin moment.
Background radiation.
Fleeing galaxies.
Using telescopes and satellite mapping and sophisticated machinery.

I think a more accurate question is:

What cosmic example, intuitively discerned, led us to understand that 'whatever begins to exist has a cause'-- was not trustworthy?


Furthermore, I actually saw an atheist state in another related thread that theists were here guilty of treating 'things in the universe' as if they were 'the universe itself.'

It seems to me that this is exactly what the atheists here are doing.

I admit I curiously peeked at
doggg's post
why does he type like
this?

How is it a straw man, who is it strawmanning?

One of the major arguments put forth by Jib ITT is that the universe appears designed, it seems to me a standard objection (and a correct one, IMO) is to say that we cannot trust our intuition when it comes to knowing the universe.

You are the best evidence: As an atheist you cannot stop thinking of god.

Even the most hardliner Atheists when they see a catastrophe the first thing that comes to their mind is: 'Oh! My God'
More discrepancy you might not find than in this case: Adult Movie actors all the time say: 'Oh! My God'

----> There exists no human, who is counsciously or uncounsciously not in love with God!

lol,This is your best shot shahrad?

I usually say holy s***....same difference i guess

And your girlfriend doesn't protest? ' holy s****, holy s****, holy s**** ....'.
BTW: What does 'holy' mean?

festeringZit does
the same
thing. It's completely
tilting. I think
they just do it
to be annoying.

Girlfriend?lol.
He has 2 wives.
7 kids.

For those who don't understand let me ask you something from a scientific point of view:
singularity
'Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past'

Whatever it was, now it is able to know that he exists, it is able to write about his thoughts......

When someone says god doesn't exist, one can only say: OHMYGOD! Now we did arrive there where we did started.

I have not claimed that the only guide we have to the origin of the universe is intuition alone--that isn't my view, nor do I think it is Jibninjas's view, nor did I attribute it to him. Instead, I was responding to a specific argument made by jibninjas claiming that we have various pre-theoretic intuitions (such as about design and causation) that justify a belief in god based on our experience of the world.

My claim is that these pre-theoretic intuitions about the nature of the universe have been shown to not be reliable in guiding us to true beliefs in areas where we can test them by science and so we should not regard them as reliable in areas where we as yet cannot test them by science.

This is not a strawman because I am not attempting to defeat all arguments for the existence of God with this claim, but only arguments that rely on our pre-theoretic intuitions about the nature of the universe being reliable.

This is not what I'm claiming. I'm not here saying that there are intuitively discerned reasons for rejecting the claim that "whatever begins to exist has a cause" (although that is in fact my view). Rather, I am claiming that there are reasons not based on intuition for rejecting reliability of our intuitions on this matter.

How so? Isn't that what jibninjas is doing by generalizing from the normal causal structure of the universe to a universal principle of causation that applies to the existence of the universe as a whole as well.

If I had to guess,
I would guess he types in another word processor
then pastes
in here.

But you don't can't he say when there was GIVE ME LIFE! It wasn't the better if time didn't back then.

"Having the appearance of XXXXX" is really not good justification for anything important ever, is it?

"I'm telling you bro, she had the appearance of a 10/10 blond chick with amazing cleavage but when I woke in the morning she was a he."

Yea, didn't think so. At the end of the day you ****ed a dude because you jumped the gun.

So, in effect, don't you think you are selectively abandoning foundationalism?

You don't understand how I perceive this very argument to be "treating 'things in the universe' as if they were 'the universe itself?"

I'm anti-wall.
I hate walls.

But I think your example is not an accurate representation.
For the most part, my lines end with a period mark.
I'm not writing stanzas or breaking lines up.

I had multiple threads open.

I was reading the kalam thread and my post is probably more appropriate there.

Though he is using the same kind of argument here.

I just think all of these kinds of arguments are intellectually dishonest.

I took a basic primer class in philosophy, and that is the extent of my training, but I seem to recall that early in the class we were taught about foundationalism, etc: that ultimately, all philosophy rests on something that cannot be proved.

It's as if you demonstrated, using logic, that god did not exist.
Instead of assaulting a specific logical statement directly, I assault the very enterprise of philosophy.
I say-- 'well, as we all know, nothing can be known for sure anyway. Lol.'

Would you take me seriously?

No.

You'd see right through what I was doing and why I was doing it.

I mean it's one take on it, but I choose to value beliefs that reflect how I see the world.. Of course there is a diameterically opposed view to your own, one which I tend to favor..

Taken straight from Wiki:

Skeptical argument: that there is no such thing as self-evident knowledge upon which to base all further understanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism#Criticisms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

Those threads always die, i dont think theists like em. Wonder why....

No, I don't. If you think it does, feel free to explain the problem (note: I'm not actually a foundationalist, but I'll play one for the sake of argument).

I guess not, because I don't know what you are trying to say here.