Okay, that was the wrong expression to use obviously. Obviously, use of the word "feel" is not too useful in an argument trying to explain how people are being rational. All I meant was that many lay people understand the underlying argument even though they have not been formally trained in logic or science. So let me try again. Here's a summary of how many people look at the universe "half full" - w/o any caveman examples or use of any word describing emotion: 1. The universe is highly complex and interrconnected and show signs of incredible self-organization. 2. Many systems in the universe show both high information content and information quality. 3. We have no (provable) examples in the universe of #1 and #2 occurring without intelligence. 4. We have provable examples of #1 and #2 occurring with intelligence. 5. Examination of 3 and 4 in turn examining 1 and 2 leads to the conclusion that the universe displays both design and intelligence. 6. Assuming that complex systems can spring from mechanistic processes is irrational because there are no known examples in the universe of such an occurrence. Now, is this a mathematical proof that the universe was designed by an intelligent superintellect? No. But it is just as rational and reasonable as the materialist scenario. See the problem is that the universe is completely unique: we have no other examples in nature to look at that show the characteristics of the universe except for things that we ourselves, intelligent beings all, have created.
And if the universe is so easily explainable, then here's a question for you: why is NASA actively investigating the possibility of panspermia? Panspermia is an extraordinary solution. So I ask you: if materialism is so self-evident: "why is science resorting to extraordinary solutions"? Because it simply does not have answers as to how such self-organizing complexity could occur on planet earth in such a astronomically short amount of time. Maybe some of the scientists are starting to "feel it in their bones" as well?
Do not see any of that as good example either.....because for one thing,what you say is just not so... There is an overwhelming abundance of material making things from other material. The universe is made of material making things from other material and shows example after example of nothing else. Within that there are endless examples of unique things. One of which is human. Nature is teaming with unique. No intelligence apparent. Just material reacting or not reacting in countless billions of ways. There is a myriad of testable observable examples of intricate uniqueness caused through nothing further than the inter-reaction of material with material. Animals which apparently have no intelligence, make intricate unique things from intricate materials, out of the intricate materials they themselves are made up from. Animals which do have intelligence do the same. The system looks complex when massively large or indefinite numbers of separate or interrelated reactions form to create a whole of something. Complex to human, but irrelevant to countless numbers of intricate chemical reactions. Right back to a singularity event this explanation stands scrutiny. The remaining answers which still require God as a stop gap for people, might well be resolved one day by a quantum answer. Underpinned by the same methods of rationality which eventually explained why thunder was found not to be the voice of the God Zeus. btw. mathematics is a concept. Whether or not the universe is explainable in mathematical terms is a problem for humans, not a material universe.
Why do you jump out of context like that?? I just do not see how on earth (pun intended) that has anything to do with materialism or materialists in the way being discussed. Why have you decided it is extraordinary to test if life first came from outside earth? Microorganism to human still doesn't sound quite like the theistic concept you are trying to promote here. Why did you ask me a question then answer it yourself Perhaps Materialism is evident because Material is SO evident in everything there is. You are looking through it and at it. Some of it might be self-evident, especially the material which makes up humans seems to be self evident, though I doubt much other is - in quite the same way. Whatâs wrong with extraordinary if it is backed up with evidence, it soon becomes ordinary once proved anyways.! But in answer to this disconnection.. just what are biochemical compounds if not material ??! But then why would you say this..... and follow it immediately with this........ ...is that your method of holding a rational discussion about creation?!
Here's the core of the debate. I would argue that this is anything but obvious. You asked why I cited panspermia? Because I am showing that science currently has no way materialistically to explain the origin of life. Again, here is a summary of the materialists' dilemma: 1. The explanation for the origin of the universe is in its infancy. 2. The origin of life research is dead ended and science is even looking to sci fi solutions: panspermia. 3. Proof of macroevolution is inferential at best. Again, lay people understand all this. Let's give them some credit even though they don't have their PhD's. This leaves all of us to speculate on the seeming design of the universe. Your guess is as good as mine.
Shoe: >The origin of life research is dead ended... >Again, lay people understand all this. ROFLAO!!!!!! Like you saying it makes is so. I'm sure the research into the cause of thunder "dead ended" at some point as well. JB Reminds me of the "everybody knows" bit which people add when hoping to win an desperate argument.
Yeah.... some of Shoes favorite fallacies are the Bandwagon fallacy and the Appeal to the majority/popularity fallacies. Further, he seems to assume that because materialism cant CURRENTLY explain something, that there must be supernatural solution instead of a currently unknown materialist solution. If we look at sciences track record, it seems your odds are far better waiting for the materialists to figure it out then to wait for anything supernatural to be proven, SINCE THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED EVEN ONCE We have no evidence for ANYTHING supernatural. Why even consider it without even a shred of evidence supporting it? Waste of time. peace axeman
First of all, I modify my statement to "virtually dead ended" as I think you may be objecting to the finality of my statment. But, if not, then let's debate it then. I'm up for the challenge. Let's see if it's so laughable, what do you say? Again, the desperation of those actually involved in the field is shown by the willingness of science to look toward panspermia, i.e. sci fi. But please pick which aspect of the debate you'd like to start with as it's a rather broad subject...