Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 92 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2018 1:05 PM
193 online now:
Aussie, AZPaul3, caffeine, DrJones*, Larni, ooh-child, PaulK, ringo, Tangle (9 members, 184 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,389 Year: 19,212/29,783 Month: 1,157/2,043 Week: 202/507 Day: 30/83 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
28NextFF
Author Topic:   Does Atheism = No beliefs?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16073
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 166 of 414 (552292)
03-28-2010 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Den
03-27-2010 10:51 PM


Intelligent Design
If they reject what others put forward as evidence, while making the statement that there is no evidence, then to vailidate and prove their arguement they must be able to provide examples of what the evidence should be.

The trouble is that the concept of the "Intelligent Designer" has (I think deliberately) been so vaguely framed that one cannot propose any necessary consequence of his existence.

One could think of things that he/she/it/they might possibly do, and which would constitute proof --- except that we can't say that the Intelligent Designer can do anything in particular, because no cdesign proponentist will say what their Intelligent Designer can and can't do. Apart from having the capacity to intelligently design ... something, but they don't have to be clear about what, nor what methods were used to instantiate his design.

Nor do they specify his motivation, which means that if we could say that he could do something, we couldn't conclude that he would do it.

To give a concrete example, if we could observe miraculous acts of fiat creation --- if we could see brand-new new species like unicorns and griffins popping out of the air by magic --- then this would undoubtedly carry a great deal of weight. But the definition of the "Intelligent Designer" is not such that it is clear that he can do this, and even if he could it's not clear that he'd want to.

If anyone will be more clear about what the Intelligent Designer did, and how, and why, and what sort of things he wouldn't do, then the notion of his existence might have some predictive power, and would be susceptible to investigation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Den, posted 03-27-2010 10:51 PM Den has not yet responded

  
Den
Member (Idle past 3084 days)
Posts: 36
From: Australia
Joined: 03-21-2010


Message 167 of 414 (552293)
03-28-2010 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Dr Adequate
03-28-2010 1:58 AM


quote:
But this is not the situation. For example, I can deduce from your existence plus the tenets of human biology that at some point you were a zygote formed by the union of a human sperm with a human egg, even though I wasn't watching at the time.

So biologists new this before the development of the microscope?

You are obviously completely wrong. It is simple fact that nothing exists to a biologist until they can "see" something.

Please before you respond to me in future have a better think about your arguement, I dont mean to be rude but I dont have time to explain every basic detail twice.

As for the rest of your arguement you have obviously not done your research well, there is more to Intelligent Design theory than just a priest standing in a church asking you to please have faith!

If you want to be a good debater you can start by getting a real grip and understanding on the opposing arguement first hand. Start with lets say St. Thomas Aquinas writings in Summa Theologica, and go from there, why not look at it yourself? instead of just accepting and agreeing with everything that Dawkins says about it?

Im on the fence, I havent made my mind up, that is because I am still trying to educate myself on both sides of the argument, what pisses me off is people reading Dawkins work and just taking his side without any attempt at being objective, this goes against the principals of the science which the Dawkins Drones claim to uphold so dearly.

Cheers
Den

Edited by Den, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2010 1:58 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2010 3:16 AM Den has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16073
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 168 of 414 (552295)
03-28-2010 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Den
03-28-2010 3:05 AM


So biologists new this before the development of the microscope?

I did not in any way say or imply this.

You are obviously completely wrong. It is simple fact that nothing exists to a biologist until they can "see" something.

It is a simple fact that every biologist would infer the fact of your conception without having witnessed it.

Please before you respond to me in future have a better think about your arguement, I dont mean to be rude but I dont have time to explain every basic detail twice.

Please, before you respond to me in future, have a better think about my argument, and ensure that you really are responding to me and not to stuff you've made up in your head.

As for the rest of your arguement you have obviously not done your research well, there is more to Intelligent Design theory than just a priest standing in a church asking you to please have faith!

Which is why I never in any way said nor implied that that was the case. Note, for example, how my post did not contain the words "church", "priest", "faith" or any of their synonyms.

Please try to respond to my posts and not the imaginary people in your head.

If you want to be a good debater you can start by getting a real grip and understanding on the opposing arguement first hand. Start with lets say St. Thomas Aquinas writings in Summa Theologica, and go from there, why not look at it yourself? instead of just accepting and agreeing with everything that Dawkins says about it?

Im on the fence, I havent made my mind up, that is because I am still trying to educate myself on both sides of the argument, what pisses me off is people reading Dawkins work and just taking his side without any attempt at being objective, this goes against the principals of the science which the Dawkins Drones claim to uphold so dearly.

You appear to be pretending that I got my opinions on theology from Dawkins.

Why? This fantasy might bring you some measure of emotional comfort, but it also makes you look like someone who indulges in self-serving fantasies.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Den, posted 03-28-2010 3:05 AM Den has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Den, posted 03-28-2010 3:25 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Den
Member (Idle past 3084 days)
Posts: 36
From: Australia
Joined: 03-21-2010


Message 169 of 414 (552297)
03-28-2010 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Dr Adequate
03-28-2010 3:16 AM


My quote:
This is the situation ... The science of Biology cannot examine anything beyond the scope of human sensory perception ...

Your reply

quote:
But this is not the situation. For example, I can deduce from your existence plus the tenets of human biology that at some point you were a zygote formed by the union of a human sperm with a human egg, even though I wasn't watching at the time.

My response :
So biologists new this before the development of the microscope?

Your response:
I did not in any way say or imply this.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does this rebuttle of yours mean then?, please dont explain, anyone with half a brain cell left in their head can understand the flaw in your arguement.

Please kid, no more, I dont have any more time for this.

Edited by Den, : Added line to seperate my sentence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2010 3:16 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2010 3:30 AM Den has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16073
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 170 of 414 (552298)
03-28-2010 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Den
03-28-2010 3:25 AM


What does this rebuttle of yours mean then?

It means that it is possible for biologists to infer the fact of your conception without having witnessed it.

It means that because that is what it says.

It does not mean anything about microscopes, because it does not in any way refer to microscopes.

Is that simple enough for you to understand? Only I am really not sure that it is possible to make it any simpler.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Den, posted 03-28-2010 3:25 AM Den has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Den, posted 03-28-2010 4:16 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 278 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 171 of 414 (552299)
03-28-2010 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Den
03-27-2010 10:51 PM


Den writes:

1. The source of intelligent design is beyond the scope of human sensory perception, i.e. sonar, radar, magnetism, gravity, ID like these other invisible forces is something beyond the grasp of our senses, and like our discovery of these other invisible forces above ID is also not beyond the scope of our concious understanding and perception.


Ok, so what is the intelligent designer? If he's unevidenced in any way, why should I even believe he exists.

2. The science of Biology cannot examine anything beyond the scope of human sensory perception(while maths and physics can), making Biological science unqualified and incapable to examine the theory of ID.

We're not the ones trying to replace evolution (a biological science) with ID here. If that's not the field that ID is about, leave it alone.

3. Biologist such as Dawkins reject all theories on Intelligent Design from the 5 arguements in Summa theologica written by St Thomas Aquinas to Micro Bioligist Micheal Behe's arguement of irreducible complexity. At the same time Dawkins and his Athiest supporters make the claim "there is no evidence of an intelligent designer"

They make this claim because it is true. I haven't seen any evidence either. I already told you what I'd require as evidence for the claim "This is designed", that's seeing the design process, not simply asserting thi is the case. If you're asking me what I want as evidence for an intelligent designer, then first ask you: "What is an intelligent designer. Of you're answer to that is "we can't know", then we're done, there is no evidence for a designer, and therefore, I see no reason to believe it exists.

If they reject what others put forward as evidence, while making the statement that there is no evidence, then to vailidate and prove their arguement they must be able to provide examples of what the evidence should be.

I gave you my view on things, care to comment on them?


Let me give you an example in reverse:

A Biologists discovers foot prints in an area which he belives belong to a feline animal, however the animal has never been seen.

The biologist writes a paper in order to prove that a feline animal must be present in the area since the prints have been discovered.

A mathematician reads the biologists paper and says this is wrong, these are not feline foot prints, and since no one has ever seen such an animal in this area, that there is no evidence that a feline animal exists here.

When the Biologist asks the mathematician, OK then you reject my theory, you reject that the evidence of prints belong to a feline animal, you say that there is no evidence of feline animals in this area, then tell us, what should a feline foot print look like?

The mathematician responds " I dont know, dont ask me", "you have to prove it Mr biologist".


But that is not what we are saying at all, is it? I gave you what I need as evidence for the calim "this is designed", and I'll wager a guess that evidence would convince Dawkins and the others as well.

This is the Dawkins arguement which you have tried and failed to repeat with your Snarklepom, since you cannot provide the function of snarklepom your arguement is fundamentally flawed

I wasn't arguing for the existence of Snarklepom, I was trying to show you why saying "there is an intelligent designer" is a flawed claim. You haven't defined what an intelligent designer is other than intelligent and designing things. I could say the function of Snarklepom is to illustrate this point. Now he has a purpose, now what?

tell me what part or function Snarklepom id reponsible for in our reality and I will prove it exists, though what it ends up being others may have a different name for what you call and label Snarklepom.

It's funtion is to make the point that undefined things cannot be proven.

For example if you say Snarklepom is a creature that flies around and eats nectar and pollen from flowers, I might say your snarklepom is what others call a butterfly, if you tell me Snarklepom is the creator and master of life and matter then I will tell you that your Snarklepom is what others call God or the intelligent designer.

But those aren't primary attributes of god. Tell me, what is god?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Den, posted 03-27-2010 10:51 PM Den has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Den, posted 03-28-2010 4:09 AM Huntard has responded

    
Den
Member (Idle past 3084 days)
Posts: 36
From: Australia
Joined: 03-21-2010


Message 172 of 414 (552300)
03-28-2010 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Huntard
03-28-2010 3:32 AM


quote:
Ok, so what is the intelligent designer? If he's unevidenced in any way, why should I even believe he exists.

quote:
But those aren't primary attributes of god. Tell me, what is god?

First read my last post again, the fact you have raised these questions validate my arguement, you have not educated yourself on the opposing arguments.

The fact you must ask these questions, exposes the problem with the current one sided education system, we are creating a system of drones, one class called Athiest the other Religious. The only way mankind will move forward is by creating objective people, to do this we must educate children on both sides of the argument and let each one of you decide for yourselves, and those who are smart enough to not only consider and mimic other peoples points, but to make your own!

Here I repeat myself again! :

Only you can answer your two questions by educating yourself on the opposing argument. Start with lets say St. Thomas Aquinas writings in Summa Theologica, and go from there, why not look at it yourself? instead of just accepting and agreeing with everything that Dawkins says about it?

Edited by Den, : No reason given.

Edited by Den, : No reason given.

Edited by Den, : edit sentence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Huntard, posted 03-28-2010 3:32 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Huntard, posted 03-28-2010 10:11 AM Den has not yet responded
 Message 185 by Taq, posted 03-30-2010 10:53 AM Den has responded

  
Den
Member (Idle past 3084 days)
Posts: 36
From: Australia
Joined: 03-21-2010


Message 173 of 414 (552301)
03-28-2010 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Dr Adequate
03-28-2010 3:30 AM


quote:
It means that it is possible for biologists to infer the fact of your conception without having witnessed it.

But no biologist would ever be able to make such an inference unless this process was originally seen and confirmed in a microscope! hence my comment remains valid. What im the hell is wrong with your brain?

now go away this is getting silly.

Edited by Den, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2010 3:30 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-29-2010 10:04 PM Den has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 174 of 414 (552335)
03-28-2010 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Den
03-27-2010 10:51 PM


In other words, God
1. The source of intelligent design is beyond the scope of human sensory perception, i.e. sonar, radar, magnetism, gravity, ID like these other invisible forces is something beyond the grasp of our senses, and like our discovery of these other invisible forces above ID is also not beyond the scope of our concious understanding and perception.

You mean God.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Den, posted 03-27-2010 10:51 PM Den has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 460 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(2)
Message 175 of 414 (552342)
03-28-2010 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Den
03-27-2010 10:51 PM


Den writes:

The source of intelligent design is beyond the scope of human sensory perception, i.e. sonar, radar, magnetism, gravity, ID like these other invisible forces is something beyond the grasp of our senses,......

I think that you're not expressing what you want to say very well. The only known source of intelligent design (us, and arguably some other animals) can be directly observed in action. Perhaps what you mean to say is that a speculative source of intelligent design from outside our life system has not been directly observed. We don't necessarily know whether that need be the case (gods, for example, are reputed to manifest themselves, and aliens could come and introduce themselves).

Then, you need to use the phrase "indirect observation" for what you're saying here:

Den writes:

.....and like our discovery of these other invisible forces above ID is also not beyond the scope of our concious understanding and perception.

Meaning, I think, that we could infer the existence of external intelligent design by observations, a bit like the inferring of planets from the wobble of stars. That's indirect observation, and yes, it's certainly possible.

So, have I clarified what you're trying to say?

You then claim that:

Den writes:

2. The science of Biology cannot examine anything beyond the scope of human sensory perception(while maths and physics can), making Biological science unqualified and incapable to examine the theory of ID.

Here, if you're trying to say that biology cannot make indirect observations ( that it cannot work on indirect evidence) you're wrong, and you're disagreeing with all biologists, including (most certainly) the I.D. types like Michael Behe.

Den writes:

3. Biologist such as Dawkins reject all theories on Intelligent Design from the 5 arguements in Summa theologica written by St Thomas Aquinas to Micro Bioligist Micheal Behe's arguement of irreducible complexity. At the same time Dawkins and his Athiest supporters make the claim "there is no evidence of an intelligent designer".

If they reject what others put forward as evidence, while making the statement that there is no evidence, then to vailidate and prove their arguement they must be able to provide examples of what the evidence should be.

Should be? Actually, it would be up to any intelligent design theorist to make predictions, but never mind, evolutionary biologists could easily think of many things that could qualify. Finding lots of fossilized mammals in 400 million yr. old rocks would seem to blow out any possible explanatory theory for natural history that did not involve intelligent interference of some kind, for example. We can think up thousands of such examples. Mastodons suddenly reappearing in North America would convince me that intelligent design was involved.

The reason why what's been put forward as evidence has been rejected is that it isn't actually evidence. Wishful thinking is not the same as evidence.

You seem to want to ask atheists what they would accept as evidence of the existence of gods. Again, that's easy, and we can think of thousands of examples. Think about it. If the clouds arranged themselves to spell out "I am god; I am here" in all human languages that had a written form, then who wouldn't believe?

We can easily dismiss the idea of a powerful god who wants us all to believe in him, because if such a being existed, we all would.

When that's pointed out to theists, they might make something up like "God is testing us" or "God wants us to believe through faith by our free will". But such ideas don't make sense if they come from people who are claiming that there is evidence of a god, only coming from those "pure faith" theists who agree that there isn't.

Incidentally, why aren't you asking people who don't believe in vampires what evidence they would require for the existence of vampires? And why aren't you asking mono-theists why they all believe in different "one true gods" with different personalities (because they do - there are as many gods believed in as there are theists).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Den, posted 03-27-2010 10:51 PM Den has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5603
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 176 of 414 (552343)
03-28-2010 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Den
03-27-2010 10:51 PM


1. The source of intelligent design is beyond the scope of human sensory perception, i.e. sonar, radar, magnetism, gravity, ID like these other invisible forces is something beyond the grasp of our senses, and like our discovery of these other invisible forces above ID is also not beyond the scope of our concious understanding and perception.

If that is the case then how could you possibly attribute this force with anything if it is beyond all perception?

For example if you say Snarklepom is a creature that flies around and eats nectar and pollen from flowers, I might say your snarklepom is what others call a butterfly, if you tell me Snarklepom is the creator and master of life and matter then I will tell you that your Snarklepom is what others call God or the intelligent designer.

This was a completely nonsensical rant. Instead of trying to philosophically convince people of the possibility of a Designer, why don't you just show the evidence of design and we can argue the points and counterpoints.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Den, posted 03-27-2010 10:51 PM Den has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18004
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 177 of 414 (552344)
03-28-2010 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Den
03-27-2010 10:51 PM


Den writes:

2. The science of Biology cannot examine anything beyond the scope of human sensory perception (while maths and physics can),...

Math is not science, but physics and all the rest of science, just like biology, "cannot examine anything beyond the scope of human sensory perception." Science studies the natural world that is available to the human senses. Anything we cannot sense in some way, even very indirectly, is not amenable to scientific study

...making Biological science unqualified and incapable to examine the theory of ID.

If the claims are ID are not apparent to "human sensory perception" then they cannot be studied by any field of science. It would mean that all fields of science are incapable of examining ID's claims.

It is ID's inability to generate any testable claims that make it non-science. If ID isn't part of the natural world, then science cannot study it. Scientists, be they atheist or agnostic or Christian or Hindu or Buddhist or whatever, study the natural world. Atheism doesn't enter into it.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Den, posted 03-27-2010 10:51 PM Den has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 278 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 178 of 414 (552352)
03-28-2010 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Den
03-28-2010 4:09 AM


Den writes:

First read my last post again, the fact you have raised these questions validate my arguement, you have not educated yourself on the opposing arguments.


Of course I have. The fact that you don't answer these questions does not mean I should somehow know the answers to them. I haven't had anyone define me what god is. I have looked high and low, but I have not received an answer on that question from anyone.

The fact you must ask these questions, exposes the problem with the current one sided education system...

I'll have you know I went to a catholic school, where we were taught the ctholic religion. Even back then, this question as never answered (granted, I never aske it, but looking back on the period, I can't esteem an answer from then either).

we are creating a system of drones, one class called Athiest the other Religious. The only way mankind will move forward is by creating objective people,...

That's what the current system does. I am objective, at lesat I think I am, I want evidence before I start believing in something, so far,I have seen no evidence for an intelligent designer, nor for god.

to do this we must educate children on both sides of the argument and let each one of you decide for yourselves..

Should we teach them the earth is flat as well\/ THat fairies exists, that uniorns do? Where does it end? Should any belief be taught, to let all the children "decide for themselves"?

and those who are smart enough to not only consider and mimic other peoples points, but to make your own!

That's what the current system already does.

Only you can answer your two questions by educating yourself on the opposing argument. Start with lets say St. Thomas Aquinas writings in Summa Theologica, and go from there, why not look at it yourself?

And you know I haven't because? Also, don't shift the burden of proof here, I don't claim god exists or that he doesn't exist, I want to see evidence for him, but before I know what evidence I'd need to see, I'd need to know what god is. Since nobody seems to know, there can never be pointed to any evidence and said: "There you go, evidence for god!".

instead of just accepting and agreeing with everything that Dawkins says about it?

I don't agree with everything Dawkins says about it. He should keep his trap shut more often, is what I think about him.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Den, posted 03-28-2010 4:09 AM Den has not yet responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5584
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 179 of 414 (552371)
03-28-2010 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Den
03-27-2010 10:51 PM


Den writes:
1. The source of intelligent design is beyond the scope of human sensory perception, i.e. sonar, radar, magnetism, gravity, ID like these other invisible forces is something beyond the grasp of our senses, and like our discovery of these other invisible forces above ID is also not beyond the scope of our concious understanding and perception.

Personally, I would have no problem with intelligent design as science, if it actually were a science. However, in order to be a science it has to be following some sort of consistent methodology, and that methodology has to have proven its usefulness.

We don't see anything like that happening at present.

You cannot just say: "I am awestruck by this, so it must be designed. I cannot find an actual designer, so the designer must be invisible. I cannot find any evidence of design that is not better explained by evolution, so the designer must be so intelligent that he was able to hide the evidence of his design and make it look as if evolution had occured."

There's just no science in that. Even if it happens to be true that an invisible intelligent designer managed to design biological systems in a way that make them look as if they evolved, that would still make evolution a science (because it tells us useful stuff about biology), and it would leave ID as non-science because it does not tell us anything useful.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Den, posted 03-27-2010 10:51 PM Den has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16073
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 180 of 414 (552572)
03-29-2010 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Den
03-28-2010 4:16 AM


But no biologist would ever be able to make such an inference unless this process was originally seen and confirmed in a microscope!

And I never said otherwise.

hence my comment remains valid.

Your comment is irrelevant to my post.

What im the hell is wrong with your brain?

I keep using it for this thing we call "thinking". Apparently you just use yours to pad out your skull.

now go away this is getting silly.

The silliness will not be reduced by my going away.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Den, posted 03-28-2010 4:16 AM Den has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Percy, posted 03-30-2010 9:23 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
28NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018