The Teleological Argument

The teleological argument is only about rationality. If you were walking though the woods and found a book you would naturally assume it had a creator even though life and the universe are far less likely to happen by chance.
I never even mentioned my religion nor the the guy in the video. Are you retarded user?

>The teleological argument is only about rationality
How rational is it to believe in a being that we can't verify? People have to try and demonstrate the unlikeliness of natural events to try and make it seem like this unverifiable supernatural being seems more probable. Unfortunately, we can't quantify the probability of a God, so what does that tell us?
>If you were walking though the woods and found a book you would naturally assume it had a creator even though life and the universe are far less likely to happen by chance
What if we had a forest floor of only books? Then how did we determine creation, if not contrasted by these man-made items?

>Ask them about aleins existing in other galaxies, they'll say of course aliens exists
where does this retarded shit come from? who the hell claims aliens definitely exist?

Orthodox are anti gay, and worship Jesus
Atheists are majority gay, and hate Jesus.
>Hmmmm which one is right????

Attached: 1546872867120m.jpg (938x1024, 264K)

If you truly do not believe in some intelligent design force at work within the universe you are blinded by egotistical pride. This video has all of the answers you need youtu.be/oSafrnYxAXg and I guarantee after watching it not only will you be a believer, but you will know the truth and have a deeper understanding of nature and this reality than you have ever dreamt possible.

Attached: IMG_4005.png (522x530, 230K)

>How rational is it to believe in a being that we can't verify?
Define "verify". We have plenty of evidence.
Atheists will make up every excuse they can to claim there's a "rational explanation". Do you want me to give you an example of an atheist saying God exists and the scriptures are true? The bible says not to waste time on people like you for a reason.

>muh verify
are you not bothered by the utter improbability of things? Code and language is only ever known to be produce by minds, so if you look at the pattern you have been given, which is code in your dna, code (quantum physics) in the fundamental fabric of the universe, it's not exactly silly to think there is a coder who has written it all. Think about it, (significant) code has never been produced by anything other than a mind. (too rare to produce within the timeframe of the universe, let alone our lifetimes)

Attached: 1497738892869.png (1584x1501, 309K)

>50% of LGBT people are atheists
>compared to 20% of the general population
How many LGBT people are there?
>Atheists do more bad things
Doesn't make a God claim more true.

Seth Shostak is probably the most famous. Sophists liem you are funny l. You know damn well many atheists believe aliens exist.

to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of
>We have plenty of evidence
The teleological argument isn't one of them.
>Atheists will make up every excuse they can to claim there's a "rational explanation"
of what, specifically?
>Do you want me to give you an example of an atheist saying God exists and the scriptures are true?
You can, i'm not sure what it would tell me. Atheists don't have to agree with each other on anything but a lack of belief in a God or Gods.
>The bible says not to waste time on people like you for a reason.
Then why are you?

>How rational is it to believe in a being that we can't verify?
Like the multiverse? Atheists like Dennett believe we are part of a multiverse with literally no evidence of it.

>lack of belief in a God or Gods.
Thanks for being honest, you dont deny the existence, just that you are unwilling to believe. We need more honest atheists like you.

>are you not bothered by the utter improbability of things?
No, either the universe was created through natural occurrences, or it wasn't. Improbabilities of specific past occurrences have no correlation to a God.
>it's not exactly silly to think there is a coder who has written it all
It's an illogical jump to point to things we've created concepts for, in order to discuss them. Then try and use these conceptual defined words to attempt to show a pattern to things and attribute an unverifiable supernatural being. If you believe a God exists, i have no issue with it. I just don't understand it.
>Think about it, (significant) code has never been produced by anything other than a mind
What kind of "code" are we talking about here?

>Like the multiverse?
The multiverse isn't a being, the discussion is about the teleological argument. I have no opinion on the "multiverse" it's just a model of combined information that we don't have sufficient evidence for, either. As interesting as theism, though.
>Thanks for being honest, you dont deny the existence, just that you are unwilling to believe
I wouldn't say unwilling, it's definitely more towards incapable.
>We need more honest atheists like you
Thank you. We can only hope the retards of this group get to a certain level where they, at the very least, don't fit the fedora meme.

How do you not accept string theory and at the same time believe theism is less rational than atheism? Atheism isn't even possible without the excuse of string theory. It's objectively impossible for everything to come from nothing.

T. Utter retard with precisely zero knowledge of string theory

Enlighten me faggot. String theory is supposed to be the cause of the big bang instead of God. It's a multiverse theory where universes are like big bubbles that collide and split apart. What am I wrong about?

>How do you not accept string theory and at the same time believe theism is less rational than atheism?
I accept string theory? When did this happen?
>Atheism isn't even possible without the excuse of string theory
It's certainly not, it's a rejection of a God claim.
>It's objectively impossible for everything to come from nothing.
How did you determine this to be the case, and who said I think something came from nothing?

So you're a fucking moron that just accepts the idea that things pop out of thin air.

that's where you're mistaken.

My argument was not that the pattern points to God, but that that the pattern points to a mind; again languages and code is a pattern associated with intelligence. If you dug up an archeological site with things that look like letters, you would not assume wind and errosion produced these letters; you would assume that someone wrote it.

This is because language or code is associated with intelligence. I want you to understand this statement in the right frame of mind; this is not some bazinga lawyer fuckin, premise 1 premise 2 shit; it's noticing a pattern or association.

Language and code tends to not be produced by natural forces, ie "random chance" but by intelligent creatures. I say intelligent creature, because we could imagine discovering an artifact on the moon, and we would assume it was made by aliens; not random chance, because again, complex artifacts and language are more associated with living minds, not the work of blind automatons.

there is a reason this association exists; it's because random chance has an incredible amount of difficulty producing complicated things; things like languages. there are 27 letters. For a 4 letter word, it is 27*27*27*27, or 27^4. each letter you add adds another power. As you can imagine, lines in regular computer code can go for thousands upon thousands of lines, meaning millions of letters even. anything to the power of a million simply isn't going to happen by chance; in all of the things that have such odds of happening that end up leading to meaningful results (like creating life, for example), the vast majority of them would have been done by minds rather than by chance, as there are just so few meaningful low chance events that have happened by chance within the timespan of the universe. that's the gist of it anyways

No, because atheism isn't a claim about anything but the lack of belief in a God or Gods. It has nothing to do with anything that you've posed here.

basically this:

we know the kinds of things blind automatons tend to produce, and it doesn't look anything close to the way this universe looks.
We know the kinds of things minds tend to produce, and it fits far better with the way the universe looks.

Do these christcucks even know where the multiverse theory comes from?

ie because this kind of complexity comes from minds, the complexity of the universe comes from a mind.

Respond to my points directly before we move on, please.

well I realized you misunderstood my post when you said "Improbabilities of specific past occurrences have no correlation to a God." I was clarifying my argument

I don't need to specify what code is, it's obvious. Anything that is like a language or code; either way each new letter will add another power to it's improbability making blind forces incredibly bad at producing it in higher lengths of code (nessisary for life).

Is God natural?

and by the way; the coder who created life, the entire universe and everything in it is obviously and intuitively what we would call God, so by proving there is a designer, I don't really need much else to be the winner.

>well I realized you misunderstood my post when you said "Improbabilities of specific past occurrences have no correlation to a God."
That's the thread topic, and in reference to you stating
>are you not bothered by the utter improbability of things?
>I don't need to specify what code is, it's obvious.
If you're talking in generalities, like DNA being code, you're speaking of something natural that we can demonstrate. We have no way to go from "codes exist" to "a god created code"

A multiverse and more than 4 dimensions are two different things.

you're really failing at this.

Codes tend to be produced by minds. Blind forces tend to be infinitesimally bad at producing code
therefor in all probability, the code is more probably produced by a mind than it is produced by an automaton of blind forces. These generalizations tend to work in practice by the way.

Tell us how a jewish zombie explains the universe.

>so by proving there is a designer, I don't really need much else to be the winner.
"winner"? You're on a discussion board, attempting to have a discussion. This isn't a debate, or a game. What a dumb comment. Regardless, you'd have to prove there's a God or designer, no matter what you want to call it.

LIEK DUDE THERES NO GOD AHVENT U HERD OF RICHARD HAWKINGS? Everything is a coincidence! Complete luck! It just happened! No God! It just happened! Darwinism explains everything! We even have Quantum Darwinism! THe big bang? FUCK THAT SHIT. Nothing can't come from something, before the big bang there was an INFINITE AMOUNT OF QUANTUM POTENTIAL. I KNOW FOR SURE IT WAS INFINITE. Don't ask me how, JUST TRUST ME GUYS, STEVEN DORKIN TOLD ME SO.

you're stalling because i've stumped you, and you don't know the answer. Also i'm quite comfortable with the rules of debate, you know what I mean when I say "winner". don't treat that statement with more autism than necessary.

i think the point is when there isnt convincing evidence for a god or against it, we can look to see how belief in god works out for people. it tends to lead to reproducing culture. atheism leads to the death of it. if atheists had a convincing argument for god there would be no deists, and if deists had a convincing argument there would be no atheists. it is because what we are talking about is ridiculous in the first place.

Are not rules of debate also to avoid using 'you'?
Commenting after refuting is an ugly winner.

>you're really failing at this.
>Codes tend to be produced by minds
and sometimes they aren't. This is why I asked you to define it, so when you say "it's obvious" and I don't think it is, then make a point and give you an example but you don't want to take it because it's not within what you believe to be the scope is silly. You need to decide on what you want, i'm trying to meet you in the middle here, but it seems you're just trying to "win" so this discussion has a good chance to fail.
>therefor in all probability, the code is more probably produced by a mind than it is produced by an automaton of blind forces.
No. Because people write "code" in computers doesn't mean a God exists. It's an action people do; a concept that we've defined in simple terms to be able to utilize in discussion. To say "more probably produced by a mind" and equating a "mind" to a God, when we can't verify if a God exists in the first place, is dishonest. We have minds, and we can create code. That's all the information we have in regards to your assertion here.

>you're stalling because i've stumped you
You're not here for discussion, clearly. If you want to start this type of angry argument, instead of a calm and rational discussion, then go find someone else to argue with.
>you know what I mean when I say "winner"
I literally don't.

>i think the point is when there isnt convincing evidence for a god or against it, we can look to see how belief in god works out for people.
Absolutely, thats why i have no issue with people believing in what they want. I'm just here to simply explain why the teleological argument doesn't make sense.
>it tends to lead to reproducing culture. atheism leads to the death of it.
I would argue that somewhat, but some atheists are morons. So there's that.
>if atheists had a convincing argument for god there would be no deists, and if deists had a convincing argument there would be no atheists. it is because what we are talking about is ridiculous in the first place.
I know what you meant, but yes. I'm just trying to keep the thread on-topic.

>You're not here for discussion, clearly. If you want to start this type of angry argument, instead of a calm and rational discussion, then go find someone else to argue with.
funny thing to hear from an atheist. anyways I've advanced past that stage, getting into specifics is too unrewarding. by "stage" I mean "muh calm and rational discussion" story that i'm not sure you authentically believe you want. Loose is more fun for me anyways.

>I literally don't.
"winner", ya know *hand waves inwards*. That you'd overall make concessions, and I would advance as having a good point in this matter; though of course there would still be other questions to answer that would still be unresolved.

that you'd see the point and concede to it

it's not fun getting bogged down by technicallities

If you recognize a code, as a code, then it is safe to assume that it's author is not much more intelligent than you.

The information content of a string of symbols is dependent on language choice of the reader. The greater the density of the information in a string, the more random it appears to one who doesn't understand the language.

Which contains more information?

道可道非常道名可名非常名。
or
道可道可道可道可道可道可
?

Now parsimony dictates that between two theories explaining the same domain of data the theory making the fewest assumptions tend to be correct. What does this have to do with intelligence? Well, the better a phenomena is understood by some intelligence in a given domain, the greater the information density of a string describing it in a language of that domain.

E=MC^2+1-1+1-1+1-1;

Can simplify this theory, to increase it's information density?

So you can compare two intelligences in a given domain by the information density of two theories produced.

But it stands that theories constructed by the most intelligent systems, are the most information dense, and consequently, appearing indistinguishable from randomess to those who do not understand them.

为什么突然来了句道德经?

While i'm waiting
>My argument was not that the pattern points to God, but that that the pattern points to a mind
So it doesn't point to a God, what does this have to do with this thread then?
>If you dug up an archeological site with things that look like letters, you would not assume wind and errosion produced these letters; you would assume that someone wrote it.
Correct. The people who make these false analogies and try to point to a God aren't demonstrating a God, they're just demonstrating a false analogy. So i'm glad you're not arguing for a God.
>This is because language or code is associated with intelligence.
I agree.
>it's noticing a pattern or association.
We can incorrectly notice patterns, or attribute information incorrectly to some patterns. This is why analogies aren't evidence.

The rest is just reiteration of what i just replied to, but if you think i missed something important try to reword it again and i'll respond to it the best i can.

Chinks kill yourselves right now.

>If you recognize a code, as a code, then it is safe to assume that it's author is not much more intelligent than you.

Have you seen dna, or the infintesimally fine fine tuning of the universe? it is very complicated with unbelieveable layers of complexity. Much of DNA we do not understand, so you can't say it the creator would be uncomplicated; the farthest opposite of that actually, nothing mind other than a being like god could have made something this absurdly complicated.

This part here is not an authentic argument; I refuse to believe you actually meant it. It's a hollow meme argument, nothing but technicality. Don't waste time with these kinds of arguments if you don't even hold any meaning to it, no one wants to diffuse them.

as for the rest of your argument; let me keep reading for a sec

nvm my bad ignore that.

THERE NEEDS TO BE A GOD SO I DON'T FEEL AFRAID OF DYING STOP GIVING AN ALTERNATE BELIEF SYSTEM STOP STOP STOOOOOPPPPPP REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>funny thing to hear from an atheist
Says you? Odd. You might want to re-read your comments in this thread before attempting at statements like this.
>anyways I've advanced past that stage, getting into specifics is too unrewarding
So i'm supposed to assume what you mean and take stabs in the dark so you can go "nah not what i meant" ?
>by "stage" I mean "muh calm and rational discussion" story that i'm not sure you authentically believe you want.
It's what i've been doing this entire thread.
>...and I would advance as having a good point in this matter
Repost a point you made that you think i've missed, so i understand your argument fully here.

>atheists by definition don't believe in any God of any kind
>atheists insist on God being in thier image

Not entirely sure what I'm supposed to respond to, and what I'm supposed to ignore.

that just doesn't sound right at all. This isn't nessisarily true; we would only not be able to understand higher complexity above that of our own: which is true, as I've said we don't understand DNA. However there are clearly parts of DNA that we do understand; a more complicated language still is fundamentally a language, there will be similarities.

Your argument is that high complexity languages are indistinguishable from randomness. It will be indistinguishable in so far as there are parts we don't understand. The parts we do understand will not look random. For example, I couldn't understand the strokes in Chinese, but I could understand that it was using letters.

I do still think this is a meme argument that you don't believe, but you did have something of a point in that yes, non-understood complexity looks random.

this part. but i've changed my mind. This is still a meme argument; however it has a point, even though it is not an authentic point (obviously intuitively wouldn't be a refutation, just a recognition of a weak feature.)
>This part here is not an authentic argument; I refuse to believe you actually meant it. It's a hollow meme argument, nothing but technicality. Don't waste time with these kinds of arguments if you don't even hold any meaning to it, no one wants to diffuse them.

as for the rest of your argument; let me keep reading for a sec

Haha, I just chose Chinese because most Americans, like myself, can't understand it. And the Tao Te Ching is something easy to google to find a legit string of Chinese text.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff's_theory_of_inductive_inference

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity

athiest are retards
and liars
no one who didn't believe in God would waste time on Jow Forums trying to prove that He didn't exist
"athiests" are just here Reeeing because most of them are buthurt faggots

Scientists can suck dicks, I know I am right because I know my arguments are authentic as I see them before me.

>Why atheism is irrational.

Because God says so.

Attached: image.jpg (1583x2048, 415K)

Neither Solomonoff or Kolmogorov were scientists. They were mathematicians.

>I know I am right because I know my arguments are authentic as I see them before me.
What a way to go into a discussion.

I absolutely believe in the Platonic/Monistic/Pantheistic God, Christian mythology will never convince me though.

Atheism is rejection of the word of god, so "God says so" can not be used as an argument to convince an atheist that he is irrational.

when I say "authentic" I mean trying to make a real point, one that you really see for yourself and believe. Something like "if God exists, he is cruel" might not be specific enough for you, as you like technicalities, but even this I would prefer because we know the person who says this can himself truly imagine the supposed cruelty of God for putting us in this situation. He is not doing wordplay, not technicalities, but something he believes authentically would be the case if God exists, as he in his view can see it. It is an argument from his own eyes and his own mouth, his own heart. Does this clarify my weird way of saying things?

I don't see any point in debating things you don't really believe, nor do I wish to debate things you do not really understand. You would be like immaterial jello slipping around my hands in one instance, and tossing out pointless shit to decode on the other. I've dealt with enough atheists to hate doing this (though still overly specific, you're definitely ABSOLUTELY better than most).

>Atheism is rejection of the word of god
NO, that's Luciferianism
Athiests simply don't believe in God
they don't get buthurt about things that supposedly don't exist
only bigots do that

So you ask God "Will this universe not be one in which your answer to this question is yes?"

What does he answer?

It's a perfectly reasonable question about a future event, with a yes or no answer, but you and God cannot agree on the answer and both be correct.

>Something like "if God exists, he is cruel" might not be specific enough for you, as you like technicalities
I do enjoy people not being vague. I think that's a fair request so I can honestly reply to someone's argument.
>It is an argument from his own eyes and his own mouth, his own heart. Does this clarify my weird way of saying things
I get what you are saying, but this doesn't help the argument any further than it just being an analogy about code.
>You would be like immaterial jello slipping around my hands in one instance, and tossing out pointless shit to decode on the other.
Another great reason to try and be more specific and transparent. This is why I'm being literal.

The complexity of the kind found in "code" and things like code (like dna) is very, very difficult to produce by blind forces (what I like to call "the automaton".)

We do know that there are many things that are like code or even are code that can and have been produced by intelligent beings. Intelligent beings can produce complex code, and have produced complex code.

we can therefor infer that our dna was written by intelligence and not by chance, based on how poor chance is at writing code. If it is common, then it is more reasonable to infer code was there by chance, heck the very sight of code would be commonly associated even by normies as coming by chance and not design, as they might even know of a functional code they once saw that appeared naturally, maybe in their window by the chance arrangement of frost. But if it is not common, in fact if it were so infinitesimally small a chance as to basically be no chance at all, then of course one would naturally infer the when you think about it, obvious conclusion that function code does not happen by chance, but by the alternative; design. The sight of a language would be commonly associated with "peoples", or "aliens", or "God"; some sort of intelligence, because that's where the languages and codes all tend to come from; things with intelligence.

Which world do we live in? Do we live in the world where functional code happens all the time? Or have we never seen it once, save for our very DNA.

>The parts we do understand will not look random.

From this paper:

wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2006elounda1/papers/534-657.pdf

>The basic conclusions of this analysis is that the DNA sequences are not automatic and the block entropies present an almost linear scaling with the word length, characteristic of a mixing ergodic system. Moreover, noncoding regions have in general smaller hKS entropies than coding ones, a fact that could indicate some ‘local order’ in these parts of the sequences.

i.e. The parts of DNA that appear non-random are the parts that are non-coding.

>Athiests simply don't believe in God
All right then. The point still stands. There's no need for such fine details. Word of god is not an argument for an atheist.

Wew lad that’s some arrogance.

Attached: E0796D99-7156-4551-A776-48B21CECFCFE.gif (500x350, 1.09M)

Christianity doesn't really delve into this, though, it simply asserts that the very things that aren't elaborated within its own holy book are the product of the Hebrew God. I'd be more convinced if Jesus came along and didn't just preach a system of ethics, but of unveiling the mystery and intelligence of nature, like Pythagoras did.

Here is an interesting book on the subject of ancient geometry.
mega.nz/#!slUVgYwQ!2sEZ14eSdyF2taLmQZxt-MTscSLSRTzBs125wcMxg-U
Much of the ideas explained in this book come from Pythagorean and Platonist mysteries that went on to inspire the greatest minds Europe produced.

you know I was going to ignore this one because this was not convincing me, but I happened to remeber something very funny about it.

This very article was proven wrong; those same coding regions were (as expected and predicted by intelligent design scientists) later discovered to actually have hidden functionality. Intelligent design scientists literally quote articles like these to show how theory was more accurate in predicting what came to be discovered in this matter, unlike the neodarwinist theory that predicted things that there would be a lot of junk DNA.

Oh, you're confused, whatever you're citing doesn't apply here. Non-coding regions have some biochemical function, but their functionality is not greater than that of the coding regions. Which would be necessary for your previous statement to be true.

So still the parts with the greatest functionality appear the most random.

>The complexity of the kind found in "code" and things like code (like dna) is very, very difficult to produce by blind forces
Right, but this doesnt mean it didnt occur this way.
>We do know that there are many things that are like code or even are code that can and have been produced by intelligent beings
>we can therefor infer that our dna was written by intelligence and not by chance
This is a false analogy.

so what if the "greatest functionality" looks to us as though it is random, the parts we do understand don't look random.

>we can therefor infer that our dna was written by intelligence and not by chance

finish the rest of that sentence.
>we can therefor infer that our dna was written by intelligence and not by chance, based on how poor chance is at writing code.

It's still a false analogy.

I'm not making an argument that it is impossible for chance to produce code. I know it is possible that it can occur this way. My argument is that it is more likely that it is produced by chance than design; that design can be better inferred by the things we know about code, and where it comes from.

GOD ISN'T REAL DUMBASS.

LOL IF YOU BELIEVE IN A GOD UR A DUMBASS.

God doesn't exist, dumbass. Seriously how fuckin dumb do you have to be to believe in a fake ass god?

>would naturally assume
Yes, but faith is not a natural assumption so it leaves the argument moot.

well then where's the error, mr specific?

no one knows for sure whether the universe was made by chance, or by design, and it could be either.
we have a clue; that complex and functional code (or really, complex functional things in general) are almost impossible to produce by chance, and tend in our experience to be produced by people, or animals, or aliens, or "God", or what I call "intelligence". One can infer from this that the universe itself would more likely be produced by God than by chance. That is what we are arguing, no?

>I'm not making an argument that it is impossible for chance to produce code
I understand
>My argument is that it is more likely that it is produced by chance than design
You cant figure out what's more probable if you cant quantify God. This probability demands this variable specifically to make this determinaton.

to give an analogy:

This is like a man who was being shot by 10 men in a firing squad, having all of the shots miss saying "well we don't know how improbable this event is, because we can't observe my execution in a parallel world".

The absence of evidence does not somehow refute the evidence we do have.

(taken from the IP's video up there btw)... Unless I am misreading what you are saying.

>cant quantify God.
remember, God is just the name I'm using. i'm really arguing in principal for minds, not necessarily God.

Oh, sorry, we're comparing measures of randomness where the language is not understood. That is, if we assume no prior knowledge of the language, and analyze it mathematically, how random does it appear?

Of course as you understand something the less random it appears to you, but not in general.

I mean, if you watch a video of 1000 coin flips, it will seem less random each time you watch it, as you remember more and more of the sequence.

that seems self defeating. If you don't understand it, then how can it seem "coherent" or "unrandom"?

>we have a clue; that complex and functional code (or really, complex functional things in general) are almost impossible to produce by chance
It doesnt tell us what actually did or didnt. The false analogy isnt related to what actually occurs, It's not accurate in representing the natural world we've observed. We encode the DNA, not the other way around.
>and tend in our experience to be produced by people, or animals, or aliens, or "God"
We have zero experience that God has created anything.
>One can infer from this that the universe itself would more likely be produced by God than by chance
Again, we cant quantify god. To assert he is more probable isnt true, since it cant even be demonstrated in the first place.