|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who designed the ID designer(s)? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SavageD Member (Idle past 3780 days) Posts: 59 From: Trinbago Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: But there is no reason why it should be possible only in that case. Once you have admitted that something complex enough to design the whole universe could exist without having a designer, then I see no basis for denying that that is at least possible also in the case of the things we see around us, all of which are (by your reasoning) less complicated than your hypothetical designer. I'll have to agree with you on this point.
If you want to know what atheists think, you would do better to ask some atheists instead of making stuff up. I, for example, am an atheist, and I do not even find the phrase "before time" meaningful. Hard to see why you would regard the phrase "before time" as meaningless since it's always mentioned when considering the formation of the universe. Time had to have a starting point, so there is a period before & after time.
You know, "matter" is a technical term, it doesn't include everything that has existence. (It would not, for example, include the standard God of the theists.) You lost me here, are you saying that matter can refer to nothing?Cause it is my understanding that matter refers to something physical, which would be 'something' than opposed to 'nothing'.
Even if all atheists believed in this collision of universes idea, which I do not because I've barely heard of it, then the deduction that you ascribe to them would not necessarily follow. After all, there is a theory that I was produced by two people having sex, but although I accept this theory I do not deduce from it an infinite number of people. Really, you should not be so free in ascribing views to atheists. First you make up what we think, then you figure out what you, not we, would deduce from the views that you ascribe to us, and then you generously attribute these deductions to us too. Fair enough, you do not believe in an infinite number of universes. I guess all atheists do not 'believe' in the same 'theories'. But I can't help but wonder, which theory do you accept regarding the existence of this universe?
Then you should read it again, since I do not subscribe to that belief (nor deny it) and was explaining why not. If you do not attribute the universe to coincidence or creation, what is your stance?
The immediate answer to that is that gravity is an attractive and not a repulsive force. As to the cause of this, that too might well be a matter of necessity rather than chance. lol, I wasn't asking you how gravity functioned...On the other hand, are you saying that gravity is here simply because it was necessary? Why don't you just admit it, your taking the position that everything in this universe is here by chance.
You are not forced to, you choose to. There is no reason either a priori or a posteriori why the reason for the universe should be possessed of a personality. Of course I chose to, was I Claiming otherwise? as for your last point, I'm not certain where your getting at. My position is simply that this universe was created, what does personality have to do with it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
This entire thread is an absolute classic case of RAZDeality. You take a conclusion - In this case the conclusion that belief in Intelligent Design is a faith based position (a conclusion that in this particular instance I happen to broadly agree with on an evidential basis). But instead of arguing your case like any normal individual you instead set about attempting to deductively prove that your conclusion is necessarily true. You setup a series of criteria. Then you make a series of arguments based on those criteria. Then (**gasp shock - how could this be?**) it turns out that all your own arguments meet all your own criteria!! Thus (in your own head at least) you have deductively proven that your initial conclusion must be true. Meanwhile anyone who does not accept your premise/criteria is "off-topic" and anyone who does not accept your conclusions is committing "logical fallacies". It is a "unique" form of argument. And no doubt one you find highly personally convincing. But those of us familiar with your more widespread antics recognise it for the circular, self-referential nonsense it actually is. If only this RAZDeality methodology were limited to attacking Intelligent Design...... With regard to this thread specifically - Yes ID is to all practical intents and purposes is a faith based position. But the idea that you can deductively prove the reasons people believe the things they do, or deductively prove that a particular widespread but disparately sourced unevidenced belief constitutes "a faith" in the sense that Judaism is "a faith" - Is ridiculous. And you are a twit for even attempting such a thing.
RAZD in the Opening Post writes: QED Your obsession with deductive logical proofs leads you to all sorts of silly arguments. This one is a case in point. Edited by Admin, : Hide content of off-topic post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi SavageD,
First let's get the off-topic stuff out of the way. I was going to send you a PM, but since I find myself responding to one of your messages I'll tell you here: My Admin alter ego merged your 1SavageD1 account with your SavageD account. All your SavageD account information was maintained except for the email address and password, which came from the newer 1SavageD1 account.
SavageD writes: Fair enough, you do not believe in an infinite number of universes. I guess all atheists do not 'believe' in the same 'theories'. Theories about multiple universes come from science, not atheism. Some scientists are atheists, some aren't. There are a number of flavors of theories (hypotheses is a more appropriate term, but it has become common practice to refer to them as theories) of multiple universes, but none have experimental verification and so none are yet accepted within science. But probably most cosmologists believe that something at least somewhat along the lines of one of them must be correct.
If you do not attribute the universe to coincidence or creation, what is your stance? I think most people of a scientific nature would echo Witgenstein's sentiments: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." In other words, the evidence we currently have in hand doesn't tell us which of the many theories of cosmological origins is correct. Or with more brevity, we don't know how the universe came to be. How does the question of cosmological origins bear on the question of the origins of the intelligent designer? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Admin writes: Edited by Admin, 05-29-2011 4:00 PM: Hide content of off-topic post Is questioning the deductive logical basis of this thread which (supposedly) deductively logically proves that ID is faith realllyoff-topic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3658 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Straggler, when you say that natural processes can make complexity, and then try to compare that to life, it seems to me that you don't understand the perception of life as many can view it.
Life isn't complex. That doesn't describe it at all. Its organized. Its sophisticated. Its methodical and systematic. Its interdependent on a million different precise symbiotic mazes. You talk about complexity like the patterns of a star, as if that could even come close to comparing with the highly organized factory that is life. Complexity is a mountain of sand. Life is not just a mountain of sand. Complex is not a word that is even in the same ballpark as the description of life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If complexity isn't "the thing" you are citing as necessitating of intelligent design - The what is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Bolder-dash writes: Complexity is a mountain of sand. Life is not just a mountain of sand. Complex is not a word that is even in the same ballpark as the description of life. What of the specified complexity of Dembski? The possession of specified complexity drives his conclusion that life is the product of an intelligent designer. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4384 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Straggler writes: How exactly do we test for the effects of an intelligent designer? We know that natural processes can result in complexity don't we? So how exactly do you decide when to invoke intelligent design? Is everything designed? Or do you think some things aren't intelligently designed? We can test the effects by looking at the reinforcement/s of that the said specimen. For example, I would like to test if HUMANS are created or evolved. Then, if I could find reinforcement for the life of human, then, human must be intelligently created by Intelligent Designer. If I could not find it/them, then, purely natural processes (nature) had evolved humans from lower form. Natural processes (purely) can make complexity, but not reinforcement/s. We invoke intelligent design by detecting not complexity, but reinforcement. Not all things are designed intelligently. Some are naturally made. IN all LIVING ORGANISMS, the changes of species is best called interrelation, not evolution. Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4384 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Reinforcement. If complexity isn't "the thing" you are citing as necessitating of intelligent design - The what is? Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4384 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes: Straggler, when you say that natural processes can make complexity, and then try to compare that to life, it seems to me that you don't understand the perception of life as many can view it. Life isn't complex. That doesn't describe it at all. Its organized. Its sophisticated. Its methodical and systematic. Its interdependent on a million different precise symbiotic mazes. You talk about complexity like the patterns of a star, as if that could even come close to comparing with the highly organized factory that is life. Complexity is a mountain of sand. Life is not just a mountain of sand. Complex is not a word that is even in the same ballpark as the description of life. To say that life is not complex without any boundary line between complex and simple is wrong and unscientific. Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4384 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Percy writes: Bolder-dash writes: Complexity is a mountain of sand. Life is not just a mountain of sand. Complex is not a word that is even in the same ballpark as the description of life. What of the specified complexity of Dembski? The possession of specified complexity drives his conclusion that life is the product of an intelligent designer. --Percy Complexity is very hard to quantify in science. I think it is one of the weakness of the old ID. But not now, we had already reinforcement. Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I have never heard of an Intelligent Design arguemnt based on he idea of "reinforcements" before.
Can you tell us exactly what you mean by "reinforcements"....?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3658 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Straggler,
Go back and read what I just described life as being, and I think you can find the beginnings of an answer. Of course the English language really isn't deep enough to fully describe the intelligence and sophistication that is life-that so many here are willing to simply chalk up to mere chance. What's really silly, in my opinion, is that those same people that want to dismiss any intelligent force behind creation-because it can't be seen or proved, are however perfectly willing to invoke visions of endless universes, in which all is possible, or multiple dimensions, or cosmic hidden forces, if these imaginations they have conjured up can somehow help them to rationalize the reality they see without having to invoke something they describe as "unnatural" because it can't be seen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4384 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Straggler writes:
This is a new one. I'd discovered it. I have never heard of an Intelligent Design arguemnt based on he idea of "reinforcements" before. Can you tell us exactly what you mean by "reinforcements"....? Reinforcement is support or back-up. I'll show you. Intellen = life + defense mechanism + sensory system + thinking mindsnaturen = life + NO defense mechanism + NO sensory system + NO thinking minds In this example, defense mechanism + sensory system + thinking minds are both reinforcements to life. Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3658 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
I don't think you get it. Calling life complex is like calling the universe kind of big.
Yea its kind of big, but does that really adequately convey its size?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024