No, I disagree: there is too much complexity and information storage in the universe and life for it to be explained by "biased pattern recognition". That is why materialists are backed into the multiverse paradigm. Their only hope is to appeal an infinite # of random events that would hopefully produce a universe with our level of complexity and information storage. But I have a couple of questions for you: are you really a diehard materialist and are you truly anti-supernatural? Was the appeal to Sauron just coincidence?
Well Mr Shine.. I'm waiting! We are ALL awaiting your elegant proof. Enlighten us with your brilliance! :-/
Well, we both know this is difficult to "prove" in the mathematical sense. How 'bout the complexity of early life? Clearly there is a huge amount of both information storage and complexity (that science has no practical idea how it could arise). Imo, this appears to have occurred exactly as we would expect it if there was supernatural intervention. That's all I've always said. Can't prove it however....
WHOA now wait just one minute! You embrace such a Grand Notion, you even tell the world about it here on ET, but when asked the Rational Q: WHY? You say, "Gee I dunno..." LOL!! This is what drives me crazy about you people with your Grand Notions you cant even get even begin to support! Its laughable! What rational man can take you seriously, or should?? Now I do not ask for a mathematic proof but at very least a coherent reasoned argument that just BEGINS to piece together one small part of your Grand Notion, this would suffice. Just one small building block. Surprise us! Give me just one little thing that makes me think. but alas, Here is YOUR basis for this Grand Assumption. this is what YOU give us. lets look at it: "Imo, this appears to have occurred exactly as we would expect it if there was supernatural intervention." 1)WHAT "appears.."?? 2)WHO "expects"? 3)DEFINE "Supernatural" in this context. 4)WHAT "intervention"?? This oNE statement is full of assumptions, undefined terms, etc and is NOT a coherent argument for "Design". Doesn't even begin to support your beliefs, not even an argument just a mass of jumbled buzz words in one sentence. You sound like Rogue only Rogue is much better at the rhetoric, his prose is pretty and flowery, your dull and wooden.
Dull and wooden? Hey, I never said I was Mr. Orator! Actually, I just didn't want to repeat myself from the '666' thread. "Dull and wooden" is okay in my mind. "Dull and repetitive" is far worse...
Yeah, you guys have no idea how much work you put me through. But I've got a feeling I'm not going to get much sympathy... I've got some spin off topics from that thread that I'll bring up sometime and see if you guys are ready. But, hey, it's Saturday!! I don't have much of a life, but I'm going to cling to the little bit I do have...
i look forward to it.. but i hope like hell you have something of substance to show us this time. A note to all Theists, Creationists, Vitalists etc: I [We atheists] wouldn't expect a complete thesis but pick ONE small block from your Grand Worldview and then support THAT well. That's a beginning..and that's all we can ask. ps. but please don't do your deepak chopra impersonation. this goes double for you Rogue.