Attributing the unknown to the supernatural falls under the fallacious God-of-the-Gaps argument.

A materialist assumes there is a materialist explanation for all phenomenon, even if we don't know it yet or cannot know it yet. This is the most rational position as far as I can see. Jumping to supernatural conclusions is never going to be the most parsimonious explanation (Occam's razor). Anyway, to throw up your hands and say it must be God is hardly an explanation for anything. As Thomas Hobbes says in Leviathan, the word "God" represents only what we cannot fathom. How many supernatural explanations throughout history have been rendered moot by science?

ant wrote: You've debated nothing here. There was no claim made that was up for debate You were more antagonistic than anything.
I think it was childish and dumb of you.

I didn't say my last post was a debating point.

Maybe you'd feel better about yourself in a Bible study forum.

I

didn't say my last post was a debating point.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Maybe you'd feel better about yourself in a Bible study forum.

Maybe you and your family would feel better among chimps, since you all share the same moral base

ant wrote: It's a shallow view,

ant wrote: I think it was childish and dumb of you.

ant wrote: It's haughty.
It's bullying.
It's empty intellectualism.

People are welcome to believe that God exists and plays a hand in human events, but this is a personal position that cannot be argued rationally or logically. Such a position may be personally meaningful to you, but doesn't correspond to objective reality. I think as you feel your belief being threatened, you resort to ad hominem attacks. Perhaps there's nothing more to say at this point except to agree to disagree.

geo wrote:

ant wrote: It's a shallow view,

ant wrote: I think it was childish and dumb of you.

ant wrote: It's haughty.
It's bullying.
It's empty intellectualism.

People are welcome to believe that God exists and plays a hand in human events, but this is a personal position that cannot be argued rationally or logically. Such a position may be personally meaningful to you, but doesn't correspond to objective reality. I think as you feel your belief being threatened, you resort to ad hominem attacks. Perhaps there's nothing more to say at this point except to agree to disagree.

human events? I don't think I've ever taken an anthropomorphic stance here. Which people are you referring to? I can't speak for them, sorry.

but this is a personal position that cannot be argued rationally or logically.

That drum has been beat ad nauseum here.

Are you ready, to, say, logically debate the randomness of quantum mechanics and it's highly counterintuitive nature?
No one can.
I hardly think you or any else here is in a position to assert that a universal intelligence does not exist (you get the burden of proof) and argue it logically from that point forward. It's safer ground to spout "of course we cant be 100% certain, just 999999.999% certain."

I see nothing ad hominem about pointing out someone's ignorance, or gladly acknowledging their certainty that their morality is chimp-like based on the evidence. He believes that, right?

ant wrote:

but this is a personal position that cannot be argued rationally or logically.

That drum has been beat ad nauseum here.

Are you ready, to, say, logically debate the randomness of quantum mechanics and it's highly counterintuitive nature?
No one can.
I hardly think you or any else here is in a position to assert that a universal intelligence does not exist (you get the burden of proof) and argue it logically from that point forward. It's safer ground to spout "of course we cant be 100% certain, just 999999.999% certain."

I see nothing ad hominem about pointing out someone's ignorance, or gladly acknowledging their certainty that their morality is chimp-like based on the evidence.

A materialist would assume materialist explanations for the workings of the universe. In the absence of evidence, why would you assume anything else? Those who assume a "universal intelligence" are doing so only because they want to believe. There's nothing there to support a "universal intelligence." The unknown doesn't automatically get tallied up to God. It remains an unknown.

The 99.999% claim is meaningless. No one can claim to know with a percentage that which is unknown.

By the way, it makes sense that the universe is strange and counterintuitive because the kind of knowledge that comes from our scientific explorations are using instruments that go beyond our five natural senses. The nature of quantum mechanics never figured into our evolutionary adaptations to survive.

There's nothing there to support a "universal intelligence."

What beliefs do we hold that seem irrational, but are nevertheless accepted as fact?

There actually are examples that support an inductive leap toward a designer. Your belief system (yes, you come packaged with your belief systems in place) does not acknowledge these indicators.

The 99.999% claim is meaningless.

Agreed. His assertion that he is 9999.999% certain is in fact meaningless.
It amounts to nothing more than a feeble attempt at certainty.
You are just as uncertain of many things as I am.

freakin' bug that only happens in BT on a Mac using Safari web browser.

ant wrote:There's nothing there to support a "universal intelligence."

What beliefs do we hold that seem irrational, but are nevertheless accepted as fact?

There actually are examples that support an inductive leap toward a designer. Your belief system (yes, you come packaged with your belief systems in place) does not acknowledge these indicators.

Evolution suggests a designer because only successful adaptations have survived to remain in the gene pool. We are only looking at the success which gives the illusion of design. All the prototypes and failed "designs" are no available to be examined. Dawkins addresses this in The Selfish Gene. What other designer pointers are there? I'm curious.

geo wrote:

ant wrote:There's nothing there to support a "universal intelligence."

What beliefs do we hold that seem irrational, but are nevertheless accepted as fact?

There actually are examples that support an inductive leap toward a designer. Your belief system (yes, you come packaged with your belief systems in place) does not acknowledge these indicators.

Evolution suggests a designer because only successful adaptations have survived to remain in the gene pool. We are only looking at the success which gives the illusion of design. All the prototypes and failed "designs" are no available to be examined. Dawkins addresses this in The Selfish Gene. What other designer pointers are there? I'm curious.

You haven't answered my question.
Please give it some thought.