Assumptions, Part 6a

Nick requested that we continue this discussion, so I’ll post the complete text of his email to me and my response over the next several posts.

Please note that my previous text is in italics block quote and his text is in italics.

“First off, I’m just going to say that the length of both our replies here proves that I was right when I said that this was not a simple argument.”

Not really. Simply put, in the various responses, you have failed to provide the evidence of your god. You simply assert “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god.”

“So sorry that I mistook you for a creationist, it’s only that your actual content of your argument is the same as every other creationist.”

“How so? A creationist would posit that an act of divine intervention, IE, a Miracle, after the creation of the Universe was absolutely necessary to create life, precisely beacuse fundamentalist Christians make the same illogical assumption that you do.

Namely, that if God exists and something occurs naturally it is not god doing it.”

You are a creationist if you believe that your god created the universe, created life or even created the processes that created the universe and/or created life. That is why you are a creationist. The end result is that you believe your god is ultimately responsible.

When you wrote “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god,” you defined yourself.

“This is ridiculous, beacuse, if we assume for the sake of argument that God exists, than what occurs naturally is still just the deterministic mechanisms that he put in place using a Universe he created.”

Well, we didn’t get that far. We only agreed on a universe existing, and it was your job to evidence your god. Since you wrote “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god,” you’ve failed.

“In other words, you are once again presenting the false dichotomy between Divine Act (different from Divine intervention) and natural act. As if the two could be remotely different in a natural universe completely created by God.”

Again, whether your god did it itself or wound up a mechanical toy to do it, it doesn’t matter. You are a creationist because you believe it ultimately is your god that did it.

Perhaps if you provided evidence for your god, more than “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god?”

“You are a creationist. You believe that your god created the universe and everything in it.”

You do realize that in modern usage the term creationist does not literally mean someone who simply believes that God created the Universe right? No one talks about “Evolutionary Creationists” anymore. There are creationists and evolutionists. Does the usage make sense? Not necessarily. Am I a creationist according to the modern usage? No. I am an evolutionist. This website you so love to use is designed for the most part with young earth fundamentalist morons and intelligent design pseudo scientists in mind. Yes, my argument naturally has many things in common with idiots like that. Your’s has many things in common with a complete idiot I know. Moving on.

Yeah, I’ve already said enough except that you could have spent your time better by ignoring the creationist label and given more than “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god.”

“Since you failed to demonstrate that your god, or for that matter, the supernatural, exists, it is ridiculous to take you seriously.”

“Nice assertion. Seems like there’s allot of those these days.”

Sigh. Sorry, but it’s not an assertion when I use your own words, specifically “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god.”

Please look up what assertion means.

“Not in the least.”

“You insist on your specific idea of empirical evidence, repeating, “give me evidence!” ad nauseum when asked to answer simple logical questions necessary to making the logical argument. I ask you, do you exist, you say, “Doesn’t matter, give me evidence.” The unstated assumption when I ask do you exist is that you are smart enough to know that the argument/evidence I am going to propose depends on you answering questions.”

Please read this sentence very carefully: I am not required, nor am I responsible, to make your case for you, either by participating in your process or answering your questions.

Evidence does not require my participation except in evaluating it.

In the thousands upon thousands of scientific, peer-reviewed papers submitted to science journals every year, not a single one requires participation of the audience except to evaluate the evidence presented.

So, when you write “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god” as your best evidence, I can look at it and see that you admit to a blind assertion, and just as easily dismiss it because it is your blind assertion.

We both agreed that the universe exists. You promised to give me evidence for your god. You haven’t done it.

“Basically, you shouldn’t have to answer my questions beacuse you want to steer the conversation this way beacuse you think if God exists, it should be simple to prove his existence.”

No, I don’t have to answer your questions because the burden of proof is yours. It’s not my fault that you wrote “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god.” You wrote that.

“On the face of it, that is not such a bad argument. Dig into the details and it falls apart, primarily beacuse there are issues of free will concerned that would make God’s very existence contradictory if he insisted on using absolute proof to show he existed.”

Sigh. You are wasting my time. Who cares? You still wrote “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god.”

“If you want to have a completely separate argument about that, we could, but I’m not going to cooperate with that beacuse that would be a cop out. If my argument that God exists is strong, as I believe it is, I feel no particular burden to prove to you now why he decides not to prove himself to you and allow this already huge and expansive debate to grow even more complex.”

No, I’d actually like to stay on topic. We agreed on the universe. You posited a god and agreed that was your burden of proof.

Please stop wasting my time.

“If that is true, then where did your god come from?”

“Ahh, the classic comeback. I bet Ancient monotheist philosophers got tired of responding to precisely that question long before the Crucifixion. If God exists, he didn’t come from anywhere.”

And, since you’ve failed to evidence your god, with “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god,” then I can ignore this.

“He’s necessarily existent. There’s no contingency to him if he exists, anymore than there’s any contingency to a materialistic universe if it is the only thing that exists.”

Sorry, but facts not in evidence. You’ve failed to meet your burden of proof, the one that you agreed to give.

“Both of our views assert the existent of a necessarily existent being, the argument is simply what the true nature of the necessarily existent being is. You have your supreme being, the Universe. I have mine, God. We are simply taking our two supreme beings and arguing which is more consistent with reality.”

No, no, no. Stop that. You are being dishonest.

At no point did I state that the universe was a supreme being.

In fact, we only agreed that the universe exists.

Nothing was said about it’s “supremeness.”

And you’ve failed to evidence your god.

So we remain stuck at the universe exists.

“This is basic stuff, philosophically speaking.”

Perhaps you should stick to the topic: you providing evidence for your god.

“The problem with saying that the material universe is the only thing, and therefore, necessarily existent, is that you have deterministic mechanisms ingrained in it which yield non material entities, namely, our consciousnesses, things which result from life. This is what the rest of my comment is basically about.”

More wasted words.

Part 6b contains a whole bunch on randomness yet seriously lacks in actual content for Nick.

At no point so far has Nick provided anything except “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god.”