sigh
I assume no such thing. That it is possible is not to say that it actually happened.
True, but the fact that you're willing to entertain this as a possibility, establishes my point I think. As long as it doesn't include "supernatural" anything should be considered.
In the Dawkins example above, he was rather explicit about not knowing how life got started on Earth, for instance.
I'm aware of that. I never said he said he knew how it started, so what's with the straw man? I said he accepted any possibilty so long as it conformed to the dogma of naturalism. Aliens bringing life to earth fits well within that paradigm, so he considers it possible and doesn't ridicule those who entertain it. However, God is immediately excluded because it is outside the boundaries of naturalism. From a rational standpoint, both God and aliens are on equal footing. There is no direct scientific evidence that either exist. The only advantage aliens have is that they are assumed to be beings who are products of the natural universe. So atheists operatng within methodological naturalism have no problems entertaining this idea.
This is another example of the kind of shoddy reasoning you and other people who offer design arguments tend to engage in.
More downtalking and less interaction with the actual argument. What a shocker.
You claim that something could not have come about unless God did it since it can only account for the data.
Right. And this remains true for many aspects of fine-tuning that we will get into later. Science has not and I would even say
cannot provided any naturalistc explanation for evidence in favor of theism.
When others point out other possible options, you claim that those other people must be assuming those possibilities are true.
They don't
have to accept it as true, but they clearly will before they accept the God hypothesis. That is because these other evidence-free propositions fit within their naturalistic assumption of reality. They are given consideraton because it is a way to dodge God. This is the point I have been trying to pound home. Stop pretending science is trying to find God or that it would find God if God exists (so says Dawkins). The current philosophy of science (methodological naturalism) is specifically designed to exclude God. Assumptions are very powerful and shape how we view reality as well as our arguments for it. Unless you can prove naturalism to be true, you must admit operating on an unproved assumption or else you're being intellectually dishonest. Thus far, Tarski is the only person here who has admitted this is his assumption.
There mere fact that it is a possibility contradicts the logic of your initial claim, no belief required, but the goal is to shift the burden of proof away from your completely unsupported (and unsupportable) ad hoc.
No, and I'm beginning to think you're incapable of ever understanding the point I am tryng to make. You guys are so absorbed in the typical New Atheist apologetic, that you automatically assume anything a theist says must fit neatly within those straw man constructions.
My point is that the typical, "God is rejected because there is no evidence" claim sounds very respectable and scientific, but it doesn't tell the whole story. Why? Because there are plenty of ideas scientists are willng to entertain without evidence. Black holes, multiple universes, etc. You hear so much about this stuff in movies and science magazines, one would think they were scientific facts. So no, the "no evidence" excuse won't do it. The real issue is the underlying assumption of reality. You refuse to acknolwedge this assumption because you cannot defend it. But by pretending it doesn't exist says more about the weakness of your own position than it does the theists.
My sandwich could not have gone missing unless a dragon ate it!
Yep, just as I thought. First Thor and now dragons. Straight from the pages of Dawkins. I guess the modus operandi is deal with anything except the actual arguments at hand. You're equating abiogenesis from dead matter with a person's ability to steal a sandwich. Now that's intellectual honesty! And keep in mind that the person doing this research is afraid he might be wrong in his assumptions. But hey, for EA, it is just as plausible as a guy stealng a sandwich?
You and JSM love to recreate the argument and present it in the dumbest form imaginable. Do you really have to resort to this nonsense? I reject every argument the two of you try to present as mine. This frustrates you, and leaves you with two choices. You can either admit you are not representing my argument accurately or you can blame me for being so stupid that I don't know what I'm really trying to argue. You clearly opt for the latter, which is why debating this issue with you quickly becomes an exercise in futility.
