Lovelylil made a series of two rejoinders to me, with a third partially encorporating me. She began as follows:
I was not speaking about "IQ", I was abreviating the words "I Question" Hence the IQ. In your rush to twist my words out of context, you are trying to have me say things I am not saying.
To the fairness of the reader I will point out my use of relatively neutral language and discussion confined to the ideas expressed toward my comments only. Assumptions about my intentions in this discourse beyond my statements are misdirected. That said, I retract the brief mention of IQ versus I Q as a misreading of the abbreviation and syntax of the intention in her sentence. In a tit-for-tat, I return to my clearly stated message in response to the misnomer of "natural laws" which has so-far remained unaddressed. Lovelylil appealed again to the error of assuming that because a belief is possible to have it is therefore at least equally as possible to be true. She referenced the claims of scientists who have made statements reconciling these ideas:
Many in the scientific community have been able to reconcile belief in a God and science. So to say I do not know what is going on in the scientific community is your opinion only.
It's worth noting that my comments on consensibility were particular to the points Lovelylil had raised. If she is saying in the above that the affirmative notion of God is nonconcensible (not open to objective concensus) I agree. The rejection of this proposition is however open to concensus and is therefore an objectively superior position. This is true because the disaffirmation of a specific claim is more likely to be true than the affirmation of a specific claim. This can be demonstrated in an analogy or mathematically if requested. It's sufficient to use the following logic:
1. There are infinite possible hypothetical theistic beliefs.
2. Mutually exclusive beliefs have an infinitely improbable chance of being true ( 1 belief / infinte beliefs)
3. An infinitely improbable empirical assessment is as close to false as is possible.
4. Therefore it is fair to say that the theistic hypothesis is false.
5. The atheistic stance can be viewed as the result of the agove analysis (therefore true) or an additional hypothosis.
6. If analyzed as an additional hypothesis, it must be compared to the neutral Deist hypothesis for equivalency.
Again, along the same lines, she stated referenced Nobel laureates and "founders" of scientific fields. These appeals to authority are not stated in a probabalistic framework as one who is pragmatic might say "believe what the best educated majority believe." A statement that is pragmatic, but not logically true. Furthermore, Lovelylil's assessment of historical systems of belief does not account for the culture at the time. Nor does it deal with the mutual exclusivity of internal theistic arguments.
Lovelylil's concluding remarks follow:
So I think maybe you are not in touch with the scientific community.
It is logically possible that I am not in touch with the scientific community in general. It is definitely true that I'm not current in all of the dozens of branches of graduate level research in various fields. Anyone who claims to be should be met with skepticism since it is a demonstrably impossible task to maintain current expert knowledge in multiple fields. If Lovelylil is willing to submit this test to an understanding what it would mean to be in touch with the scientific community in general I would submit my level of knowledge to such an assessment, but this still makes no inroads to the truth of the questions under consideration.
In Lovelylil's next response she said the following:
I will put this to rest with you too. Because you are misreading my comments in a rush to use your big terms (ad hominem, etc) that I do not think you understand what the meaning really is of them. The only point I wanted to make was this;
Science cannot rule out a God, whether the God of the Bible or any other God (like Sirona said), as the origin of life or "cause" that brought the universe into existence so niether can you nor Tuesday. You may choose not to believe in higher powers and that is your right to do so, but you cannot say they absolutely cannot exist. I do not see how that is "circular reasoning", it is pretty straight forward fact. Peace, Lilly
Her claim in paragraph (1) not withstanding, the claim made about science is contingent on the definitions of Science and God and I do not submit this point. I have made ample points on the subject. Depending on the theists definition, it can be proved that God did or did not do a certain thing. This is empty reasoning. Lovelylil fails to make this distinction: There is no way she can prove that God is not writing this message (as I type these words). But, given an understanding of the common ideas about God she is fair to infer that it is a human writing this message. Furthermore, she could say that it would be irrational to believe that God is writing this message. Finally, if speaking deductively from the proposition "If God exists, he does not write on internet message boards" she could conclude that God is not writing on an internet message board. However, if I added the premise that "God is writing on JW discussion forum" and "JW discussion forum is an internet message board" one could rightly prove God does not exist given the premises laid out.
She then continued to misrepresent the nature of beliefs as points of "choice." It seems clear to the psychological community at large that people form beliefs based on information attained through the five senses and in respect to other beliefs, instincts and biology. She also failed to respond to the causal chain definition I had pointed out previously. I will post an elaborated version of entailment and causality as follows:
1. The universe at any time, T is completely defined by the state of affairs which entail the composition of the universe (spatial relationships of mass/energy with respect to eachother at time T)
2. The universe at the next fundamental occurance of space/time is fully entailed by the state of affairs which immediately preceeded the state of affairs at T.
3. Regressed into the past, the universe has a complete natural explanation given the existance of the state of affairs such that the preceding Ta entailed the antecedant Tb.
4. This can be regressed to the Plank wall at 10^-43 seconds after T was first entailed in the function of the universe.
5. If all times T are entailed through General Relativity as part of the universe, then all T's can themselves be infinitely regressed without respect to a beginning.
Even if I credit Lovelylil with a beginning, God only needs to exist for 10 to the negative 43 seconds. If this is where a Deist wants to hang his hat, by all means do so (on the smalles hat rack the universe has ever seen). But to extrapolate this to a Theist argument that not only does this infinitely unneccessary being exist, but that he listens to you and you know what he wants is a jump of the highest possible order.
Lovelylil concluded her third reference to me by again ignoring everything I had said about her usage of the Thermodynamic Argument. I say for a third time that this fallacy is in the definition of boundary conditions for closed systems as has been known since well before the 1970's when it was mathematically demonstrated in dissipative systems. I will myself hang my hat on this one, since I am actually an engineer who works in the applied sciences of energy systems.