|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who designed the ID designer(s)? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If complexity isn't "the thing" you are citing as necessitating of intelligent design - The what is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member 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"....?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
In what way are these "reinforcements" specifc to Intelligent Design?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So how do we recognie these intelligently designed "reinforcements" from those complex things which have just occurred naturally?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You talk about "mere chance". But if complexity is not that which you identify as unable to come about by what you describe as "mere chance" then what is it you identify as requiring Intelligent Design?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Intellen writes: Straggler writes: So how do we recognise these intelligently designed "reinforcements" from those complex things which have just occurred naturally? NATURE cannot make reinforcement, so it is very easy to tell. I am glad it is easy to tell but I am still confused as to what exactly constitutes "reinforcement". Can you be more explicit about what "reinforcement" is exactly?
Intellen writes: Complex things in nature is only a mimicry of nature. So how exactly do you decide when to invoke intelligent design? Is everything designed? Or do you think some things aren't intelligently designed?
Intellen writes: So, it is very easy too. Then differentiating between that which has been designed and that which hasn't should be a simple task. I assume you will be able to tell us how to definitively make this distinction?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Port writes: God designed time itself, so God is outside of time and has no beginning or end. How do you know this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Portillo writes: I believe that God is the designer because I believe that God is the designer, architect, supreme being and source of the universe. I don't doubt that you do believe this. But why do you think your particular beliefs have any bearing on reality?
Portillo writes: "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM." This reveals God as the being who is absolutely self-existent, and who in Himself possesses essential life and permanent existence. And other books will say other things which suggest that other gods are the undesigned designers of the universe. I suppose with regard to this thread the question is this - Do you consider your belief that the Christian God is the designer to be a faith based position or an evidence based position?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
It is not uncommon for those of faith to convince themselves that their faith based conclusions are also evidenced.
Can you tell us what evidence you use to derive your conclusion that the Christian God is the undesigned designer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZ writes: Belief in alien visitations without objective empirical evidence is faith. Belief in sasquatch\yeti without objective empirical evidence is faith. Belief in Intelligent Design without objective empirical evidence is faith. It is not science. The fact that something is not science does not mean that it is faith. This is a false dichotomy. You cannot prove that a form of belief is adopted on the basis of faith rather than poor reasoning, inability to discern good evidence from bad or any number of other possible reasons for belief.
RAZ writes: These categories all end up with belief in an Intelligent Designer being a matter of faith. Your silly idea that you can logically prove that something is a form of faith is non-sensical to the point of stupidity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: I still think its possible for someone to come to a conclusion of ID without having to rely on faith to get there. Poor reasoning, inability to discern good evidence from bad, lack of understanding, an indifferent attitude that is open to change if exposed to the facts that one is unaware of..... Any belief can be based on all manner of things that are not faith. If RAZ is simply saying that there is no objective empirical evidence in favour of ID then fair enough. But he could have done that without the whole "Who designed the designer" angle. And the idea that he has provided a deductive logical proof that belief in ID must be based on faith is just silly. People have believed in all manner of things - From a luminiferous ether to the genuineness of piltdown man - Is RAZ saying that everything is believed on faith until scientifically confirmed as correct?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If an absence of objective empirical evidence isn't what RAZ is using to distinguish faith based belief from non-faith based belief what is?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024