|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Spotting Beretta's "designer" {Now only 1 summation message per member} | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Otherwise your intelligent designer requires an intelligent designer. Everything which has a beginning has a causeThe universe has a beginning. Therefore the universe has a cause. God, the intelligent creator or whatever you would prefer is by definition the uncreated creator of the universe. He has no beginning and thus no cause. So to ask the question "who created God" is illogical.The universe cannot be self-caused because it is self-evident that things that have a beginning have a cause.The universe cannot be self-caused because nothing can create itself. God, the intelligent creator is outside of time so he has no beginning and thus no cause.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
If one mutation can make this change, could mutation cause one finger to move into opposition to the others, and become a thumb, for example? Theoretically maybe but we need more than theory to constitute scientific proof. Supposition upon supposition is what has put evolution into the 'fact' section of our lives - that is not/should not be science.We need direct evidence to turn theories into fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
God, the intelligent creator is outside of time so he has no beginning and thus no cause. Two, or is it three? unsupported, evidence-free assertions in one sentence. Remarkable. "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Everything which has a beginning has a cause Oh yeah? Prove it. Please present to us your proof of this, as it relates to everything. You are once again making sweeping universal statements, without a hint of doubt or tentativity, from a position of ignorance. Did you not learn your lesson with your "All Earth's creatures have two eyes." rubbish? Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Corygyps writes: Beretta writes: God, the intelligent creator is outside of time so he has no beginning and thus no cause. Two, or is it three? unsupported, evidence-free assertions in one sentence. Remarkable. Unsupported? Evidence-free? We have living things and two possibilities -they created themselves OR they were created.If they were created then their creator might also have been created and so on ad infinitum OR their creator created mass and time as well as the creations. Evolutionists apparently believe that living things created themselves by chance, natural selection and lots of time but that is not the only game in town -it is the only one they seem to think it is reasonable to play. Where is your evidence minus the philisophical trimmings? The fossils, no; evidence for increased genetic information, no. Perhaps you overestimate your evidence or maybe it's just the philosophy you prefer and evidence is really not that important when you've already decided the cause.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
How about you tell me all the things you know of that have a beginning but no cause?
Did you not learn your lesson with your "All Earth's creatures have two eyes." rubbish? It seems that most every evolutionist has to keep this one in his personal arsenal for when he has no further argument and is getting flustered. It's like an ad hominem general purpose waste my time type of thing. Who are you trying to impress? Or are you saying that I don't know everything? When you personally do know everything then you should haul this one out - then it may have some relevance because the point you are obviously trying to make is that you, unlike me, are extremely clever and in a better position to posit the creation of everything from nothing than I am to posit the creation of everything from something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
You're missing the point, Beretta. It's your own arguments that make a designer impossible. Whenever you describe something as requiring a designer, it means that your designer would also require a designer.
Obviously, whether there's a designer or not, it must be possible for things like complexity and intelligence to exist without requiring a designer. Your arguments contain an inbuilt contradiction, and are therefore self-defeating. They make life an impossibility by any route, but we're here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4746 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
. but that is not the only game in town . There are a thousand games in town; many we've not even thought of yet. However, of those that have been thought of, all but a general theory of evolution have been eliminated by either evidence or methodology. Your particular favorite, the God of the Bible, has been eliminated for reasons of parsimony: He adds nothing whatsoever by way of explanation. If you want to reinsert Him you'll need to demonstrate where He does add value to the argument while simultaneously eliminating all other magical causes; i.e., Flying Spaghetti Monsters.
Where is your evidence minus the philisophical trimmings? The fossils, no; evidence for increased genetic information, no. It is just as important, or more so, that neither of the categories you mention here (thought the second is patently false), or any other catagory ever mentioned anywhere, eliminate ToE as a possible explanation. Your insistence of being ignorant of the evidence does not delete the evidence. The evidence of ToE is overwhelming. And that it has stood the test of time unscathed is not to be sneered at either. Kindly Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute. ‘—
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Theoretically maybe but we need more than theory to constitute scientific proof. Supposition upon supposition is what has put evolution into the 'fact' section of our lives - that is not/should not be science.We need direct evidence to turn theories into fact.
You are making the same mistake most creationists make, in thinking that we progress from theory to fact or proof. That is not correct. There is no such thing as "scientific proof" except in the minds of creationists, and then only as a means of separating the theory of evolution from other branches of science. In science, theory is the highest level obtainable. A theory is the current best explanation for a set of observations. A powerful theory not only explains all the relevant facts, but also allows accurate predictions to be made. At no point does a theory graduate to a fact or a law; theories explain facts and laws. These corrections render your arguments invalid, and expose your lack of scientific knowledge. (See tagline.) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
How about you tell me all the things you know of that have a beginning but no cause? The burden of proof is not on me. Your argument presupposes that all things with a beginning require a cause. This may or may not be true. If your argument rests upon this statement, it is up to you to prove it. You can not unequivocally say whether all things with a beginning require a cause or not. There may be an exception that you and I are both unaware of. You are making an unwarranted assumption. This is pretty ironic given that you are extremely critical of "assumptions" within the ToE (although you are rarely specific about what these assumptions are). It seems that making assumptions is fine for you, but unacceptable for anyone else. Hypocrisy at all Beretta?
It seems that most every evolutionist has to keep this one in his personal arsenal for when he has no further argument and is getting flustered. It's like an ad hominem general purpose waste my time type of thing. Who are you trying to impress? Or are you saying that I don't know everything? Yes!! That is exactly what I'm saying. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can know everything. That is exactly why universal statements such as "Everything which has a beginning has a cause" or "All Earth's creatures have two eyes" can never be made in the absolutely authoritative way in which you seek to use the statement about causes. Just as when you made the statement about eyes and later found an exception that falsified your rule, there may be an exception that falsifies your rule about causes. The fact that your initial premise is unverifiable reduces your argument to pure speculation, exactly what you are so critical of yourself. By the way, this;
We need direct evidence to turn theories into fact. is nonsense. I am surprised that you have been on this forum for so long without picking up a bit more about how science operates. Theories are not promoted to facts when they garner enough evidence. Theories explain facts. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Beretta writes: How about you tell me all the things you know of that have a beginning but no cause? Virtual particles and radioactive decay are two. Our experiences in the macro world are a poor basis upon which to judge the true nature of the universe.
Beretta writes: It seems that most every evolutionist has to keep this one in his personal arsenal for when he has no further argument and is getting flustered. It's like an ad hominem general purpose waste my time type of thing. Who are you trying to impress? Or are you saying that I don't know everything? When you personally do know everything then you should haul this one out - then it may have some relevance because the point you are obviously trying to make is that you, unlike me, are extremely clever and in a better position to posit the creation of everything from nothing than I am to posit the creation of everything from something. Actually, I think the message people are trying to give you is that scientists don't honor a position because they like it but because they respect the process by which the position is arrived at. Positions arrived at via the scientific method, one that involves data gathering, hypothesizing, predicting, validating and replicating, are imbued with more credibility than those derived from uninformed speculation or, even worse, revelation. So it isn't your mistaken positions that call your other positions into question, at least not directly. Rather, it is that your mistaken positions tell us that you're using a flawed process for arriving at your conclusions. So when you say things like, "Everything which has a beginning has a cause," we question the process by which you arrived at this conclusion, because this seems a position drawn from casual observations of the macro world and not from the scientific method, the same as your "All earth's creatures have two eyes" declaration. The way to arrive at conclusions that are likely true about the natural world is the scientific method. Any other method you employ will be more error prone. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
But we do not necessarily presume that the original tree with all its interconnected functions working together necessarily came about by natural processes. That should read, "CREATIONIST do not necessarily presume natural processes...". The other problem with that statement is the word 'presume'. Science does NOT presume natural processes, science studies the natural processes. Are you tell me you don't see any natural processes that can be studied in the field of Abiogenesis, and so you HAVE TO conclude a Creator? However, you stated that, (we, you, creationist), 'do not 'presume' natural processes...maybe the problem is that you shouldn't be PRESUMING anything.
That to me would be an intelligent supposition knowing what we know about things that are designed to work. Yes, but no one other than creationist think that nature was 'designed' to work. So again this only seems an 'intelligent supposition' to someone who already believes in a Creator. You are putting the cart before the horse.
Well one shouldn't really presume such a thing. One should, in order to avoid philisophical assumptions, put all the possibilities on the table and then gather all the evidences together not just those that support our favored philisophical supposition. Yes, but at what point would you become overwelmed with ridiculous 'possibilities'? We can't listen to EVERY possibiliy now can we? We should narrow it down to REASONABLE possibilities right?
If there are no possible alternatives to materialistic causes, why bother to collect the evidence at all? Simply put, no one has any evidence for something 'other' than natural causes when natural phenomenons have been observed. Key word here is: evidence.
No I'd have to not agree with you there -origins are not easily explained through natural causes -in fact the whole field seems more based on imaginative scenarios than on anything concrete. I'll accept that as a good answer. But lets look at it a bit closer. You say its based on 'imaginative senarios'. Well name a solid theory that HASN"T been based on imaginative senarios? Imagination is what drives progress wouldn't you agree? The key is to keep things in perspective. Long ago an eclipse, based on imaginative senarios, was said to be the work of the Gods. However, along comes science, and based on equally imaginative senarios, concluded that it was the orbiting of the planets that gave us eclipses. Imaginations where used to explain both however, one keeps natural process in perspective, while the other does not.
I'll agree with you on that as well but when your natural explanations start to look non-explanatory or even imaginary, then it's time to look again! Agreed. But where is there not sufficient evidence on something, and no scientist is working on it? It seems for every possible question there is a field in science dedicated to it, with many scientist working on every possible answer. All you are saying is that YOU have a problem with the answers because YOU believe things look created...and why do you believe they are created? Because ou believe in a Creator. ...you are putting the cart before the horse again. TTYL All great truths begin as blasphemies I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No there are philisophical presumptions that material processes must have done it. There's no point in you telling me this lie --- I've looked at the evidence.
If material processes,no foresight and no intelligence is capable of creating the intricate interconnectedness of all the functions of biological design -I'd call that magic. Why would you describe as "magic" something which was done by material processes? This appears to be a contradiction in terms.
Well you know science is supposed to be based on evidence but you're probably right -a lot of scientists do seem to work according to these philisophical assumptions while apparently not realizing that they have any. The view that you attribute to me is one that I do not hold, as I presume you know. Why lie to me about my own opinions?
No, you're wrong there -some of them find it believable, some don't, some might change their minds about what they imagine is believable if they looked deeper into this controversy. It seems that the public at large don't generally believe it either. Perhaps their indoctrination hasn't been intense enough but don't tell me that only sceintists have brains and that the educated lay public are in no position to assess the conclusions drawn from the evidence or the lack thereof. I will tell you, however, that the scientists are more familiar with the evidence than most of the public, and are therefore more likely to be guided by the evidence and less likely to be guided by halfwitted religious bigotry.
By the way, it's by looking into the details personally that I find it 'unbelievable'. Don't tell such silly lies, you know nothing of the details, and we know it. You, remember, were the guy who based your argument against evolution on the premise that "all Earth's creatures have 2 eyes". You've never looked at the details of the world around you, because you're not remotely interested in it.
They didn't reach those conclusions by doing science, they limited themselves to material conclusions from the outset. This is, of course, not true, and reciting this lie over and over again will not make it any truer --- nor will it deceive anyone. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4523 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
seems to me we have strayed from the OP ..which was the nature of Beretta's designer.....
clues i have picked up from the 100 odd post so far ... please correct me if i am wrong ... god, the god of the bible , did it , he did it in the ..outside of time and space room ....and he did it with the magic ... not sure if any of the new testement stuff is involed so may just be the old jewish bits .... i guess what was confusing me was i though this was a ID designer .. but it turns out its a atypical bible creationist designer... so what Beretta is saying is .. well .....nothing new no new evidence , no new reasoned debate , no new counter interpretations of the material in question ... maybe this thread should be moved to faith and belief or bible studies .... still i would have like to debate if a Pollock painting is a example of design.. and if you can really understand it without understanding Pollock and his body of other works ....life such a odd thing .....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5020 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Ikabod makes a valid point. We still have very little info on the designer. As ever Beretta seems more keen to attack the "assumptions" of science.
So what do we have?
Beretta writes: [The designer is] very imaginative, very mathematical, very brilliant - way beyond our limited brains and abilities to understand in more than a fairly elementary way. So we have have a powerful, talented designer who (conveniently for Beretta) cannot be understood.
Beretta writes: Lots of people think it's obvious that a creator exists just by looking at life. When it comes to spotting design the only info Beretta has offered is that it is "obvious". Not very helpful.
Beretta writes: God, the intelligent creator is outside of time so he has no beginning and thus no cause. With this comment I think we can agree that Beretta has dropped any pretence of arguing for an alternate scientific explanation. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024