I hear ya. Asking for a definition in a debate is suicide. If the only problem someone can find with an argument is that they don't understand a word then it is they who has lost.

Accidental, with out intent. Accidental does not need to be defined in the context of the debate because it is a basic, specific concept. If you don't know the definition of the work you can look it up, it's not my responsibility to define words that you don't understand. That is why "hard line atheist" was unacceptable and subsequently was replaced by antitheist. Antitheist is more accurate for the debate topic.

@jayneonacobb How do you measure 'intent' of an inanimate object? Isn't everything in space 'accidental' then? Does a planet 'intend' to orbit the sun, or is that an 'accident'?

Is your anthropomorphism intentional, or just an accident?

I would define those things as results of an accidental universe which is governed by certain laws and principals that lead to those events. In these cases they would be gravity and evolution, respectively. Intent requires intelligence.

Accidental means without intent. I'm not required to offer alternative theories to point out that they could exist. I don't know how the big bang happened, but I don't think it necessarily means that it was an accident. To answer the question though: I do know that some people have posed the notion that black holes might create singularities which lead to other big bangs.

@jayneonacobb so are you saying that you accept that the big bang may have been intentional?

I'm saying that we don't know how the big bang happened. The black hole is just one idea, there are others. Maybe someone in another universe recreated the big bang of their universe and in doing so created ours. That doesn't mean I believe either. There's no evidence for me to decide either way.

The way our universe works is consistent with the accidental universe theory. I believe this is the best theory based on the data. My argument is simply that being an antitheist doesn't bar other theories of origin. You could call me a materialist in the sense that I don't accept things as true without evidence.

I having been thinking about your statements @jayneonacobb and I am having some difficulty in untangling & reconciling them.

On the one hand you say you are anti-theist (you are overtly, consciously and deliberately opposed to theism), then on the other hand you say “There’s no evidence for me to decide either way”. That is an agnostic position. Are you atheist or agnostic?

You accept that the big bang (the origin of the universe) may have been intentional. To qualify that you say that a black hole may have caused the universe to come into existence or maybe someone in another universe recreated the big bang of their universe and in doing so created ours, but this just obfuscates the question. If the big bang is an inverse black hole then was the universe it originated in accidental or intentional? If someone in another universe recreated the big bang of their universe and in so doing created ours, then was the big bang that created their universe accidental, or did someone in another universe create that big bang? Sooner or later, to avoid reductio ad absurdum, you must arrive at the original big bang, and there the question stands.

You say “The way our universe works is consistent with the accidental universe theory”. I don’t think there is such a theory, unless you are referring to the multiverse hypothesis? You say you believe “this is the best theory based on the data”. What data are you referring to?

My question to you is; do you think it more likely that the universe came into existence as the result of an act of conscious will, or do you think it more likely there is no intent behind the universe at all?

I think you're confusing my argument with my beliefs. I am a materialist and antitheist, which means I believe that the way our universe exists is consistent with it being accidental. The data for this is how the universe works. I think you missed the point of the post.

You're right about one thing @jayneonacobb . . . I'm confused.

This is what I have learnt from our exchange;
You are a materialist and anti-theist that believes the universe is accidental because the data on how the universe works is consistent with it being accidental. But being an anti-theist doesn't necessarily mean you have to believe in an accidental universe, because it might be intentional, there's no evidence for you to decide either way.

Therefore. . . . hot wings & beer!! In moderation of course, please eat responsibly.

@mrdunn The big bang is consistent with what you would expect from an accidental universe. Most of it is inhospitable to life. The second law of thermodynamics illustrates exactly what happens in a closed system. Our universe is exhibiting properties of being in a closed system. That's not what were discussing here and I think you know that. You just wanted me to lay out an argument that is irrelivent given the nature of the debate.
We're discussing weather or not, in this specific iteration of the universe that we currently occupy, an antitheist can believe in an alternative theory to the two posed by science and religion. The answer is yes. The infinant regression argument is not applicable in this instance because it is only discussing the cause of, again, this specific and current universe, which we now occupy. I literally spelled it out for you, but you just don't seem able to separate a premise for a debate and what someone actually believes. I've had to debate both sides of every issue that I discuss, it doesn't mean I believe both sides. This was an exercise in finding common ground with people you disagree with and posing new questions.

@jayneonacobb it is a non sequitur to posit that because most of the universe is inhospitable to life as we know it, therefore the universe is accidental.
The second law of thermodynamics raises some interesting questions in regard to consciousness, I think. Does consciousness require increasing or decreasing entropy in order to manifest?
For the record, I think the universe is a closed system too. Where we would differ, I think, is that I am not a materialist i.e. I think there are more dimensions to reality than just the physical one.

I think the crux of what you and your friend Jon/Joe were discussing was, can an antitheist believe in a non-accidental universe, i.e. an intended universe (deliberate, planned, purposeful)
The examples you offered in support of your answer in the affirmative merely shifted the question into parallel universes and offered no support to your assertion at all, but I think you know this. You should probably apologise to your friend and just say yes, one cannot be an antitheist and believe that there is deliberate intent behind the creation of the universe

I think your idea of a debate is to win. I don’t think you are interested in finding common ground at all. It seems you would prefer people concede to your argument and if they don’t, then they must not understand how to debate.

You need a dictionary and a class on debate. String theory allows for a multiverse. It may be possible for someone in another universe to intentionally create a universe. In which case the resulting universe would be intentionally created. You need to stop thinking in binary terms and start thinking abstractly about things. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. This theory would make an antitheist wrong in the assertion that the universe they occupy was accidental in origin. I'm not saying I believe that, I'm just not ruling it out either, which does not mean I believe it. I said that I am a materialist in the sense that I require evidence before forming an opinion, or believing someone's claim. This does not change the result of the theory. I'm sorry to tell you, you're wrong about everything you said. I think you need to work more on your critical thinking skills, and less on being critical.

I lost on that initial point, It says so in the post. I did win the overall debate. We found common ground by me helping him pose a question in a better manner. Subtext, my man. Even though I suspected that my version of his question required I conceit that point I still helped him establish a better argument. I learned something in the process and I thought it was note worthy enough to share. The real lesson I learned was to think abstractly. Once again, you miss the sub text.

@jayneonacobb concede, you concede the point. Conceit is something you might want to reflect on. Other than that, your post, like the content of your debate, lacks substance. But hey, chalk it up as a win all the same.

I know it's concede the damn auto correct keeps changing it. You're just a troll. Oh, that makes sense, you can't think correctly because you're a believer.

slow down there @jayneonacobb, just because I challenge you on the logical inconsistencies in your statements doesn't mean I'm a troll. Likewise, my theistic beliefs don't rob me of the ability to think critically. Is this the reason you like to debate with Jon/Joe? Do you feel you are intellectually superior to him? Your penchant for non sequiturs is a serious handicap in debate, you need to work on that.

Do you think Joe is intilectual inferior to me because he believes in God? See, I can troll you too.Talk about a nonsequiter. That's what trolling looks like, familiar to you, isn't it?

Your belief does rob you of critical thinking in at least one area. I just happen to think you did a wonderful job illustrating how that one illogical belief you hold can poison the rest of a person's mind.

@jayneonacobb ok. . . you're making even less sense now. Your ad hominem attack just proves you have nothing intelligent to say, so I'll say goodbye now, you may have the last word.

Accidental means without intent. I'd say it fits the bill. Spontaneous is more of a timing issue. One can be spontaneous accidentally. I'm glad you get the premise of the story though.

ac·ci·dent
/?aks?d?nt/
noun

1. an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
   "he had an accident at the factory"
   synonyms: mishap, misadventure, unfortunate incident, mischance, misfortune, disaster, tragedy, catastrophe, calamity; technicalcasualty
   "an accident at work"

2. an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

Accidental in this case means unintentionally because it is an adjective, not a noun.
[google.com]

Well you only 'know' that through the fault-lines of Christianity's shit explanation of the third-self. 'Holy Spirit' was highly debated as completely the fuck asinine however there was no antithesis that carried weight - the same issue was explored in other religions as well. And as far as, if you're argument would be logic proves the perimeters of the subconscious- the brain and subconscious - the universe as simply math my rebuke would be serendipity.

However, I am terribly paraphrasing Karen Armstrong's - A History of God.

@MadHadderoll of course... nobody can give an antithesis to the undefined.

Looking thru the Hubble pics, and the expanse of outer space, the billions of other solar systems, If not an accident, Then explain the billions of other solar systems, Even a trained Cosmologist would come to the conclusion of Random placement of solar systems. There is no order in infinitive space.

I agree on the burdon of proof. The debate was weather or not antitheist had to believe in the accidental universe theory, or if they could believe in other theories for the cause of the big bang. It was more an exercise in how to establish an argument and a lesson on how important language is in a debate.

@craftsman "If not an accident, Then explain the billions of other solar systems" is the classic argument from ignorance. 'Gee, this looks like it has been designed therefore someone designed it, therefore god'

Prove it.

@Uncorrugated I claim it is by Fluke, random chance. and not by intelligent design, If I came off as saying otherwise. I apologize.