Message 166 of 414 (552292) 03-28-2010 2:49 AM

Reply to: Message 164 by Den 03-27-2010 10:51 PM

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.

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.

Message 168 of 414 (552295) 03-28-2010 3:16 AM

Reply to: Message 167 by Den 03-28-2010 3:05 AM

I did not in any way say or imply this.

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 my argument, and ensure that you really are responding to me and not to stuff you've made up in your head.

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.

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.

Message 169 of 414 (552297) 03-28-2010 3:25 AM

Reply to: Message 168 by Dr Adequate 03-28-2010 3:16 AM

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

Message 170 of 414 (552298) 03-28-2010 3:30 AM

Reply to: Message 169 by Den 03-28-2010 3:25 AM

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.

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

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.

Message 174 of 414 (552335) 03-28-2010 8:52 AM

Reply to: Message 164 by Den 03-27-2010 10:51 PM

You mean God.

Message 175 of 414 (552342) 03-28-2010 9:21 AM

Reply to: Message 164 by Den 03-27-2010 10:51 PM

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:

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:

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.

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).

Message 176 of 414 (552343) 03-28-2010 9:25 AM

Reply to: Message 164 by Den 03-27-2010 10:51 PM

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

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.

Message 177 of 414 (552344) 03-28-2010 9:41 AM

Reply to: Message 164 by Den 03-27-2010 10:51 PM

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

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

Message 179 of 414 (552371) 03-28-2010 1:45 PM

Reply to: Message 164 by Den 03-27-2010 10:51 PM

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.

Message 180 of 414 (552572) 03-29-2010 10:04 PM

Reply to: Message 173 by Den 03-28-2010 4:16 AM

And I never said otherwise.

Your comment is irrelevant to my post.

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

The silliness will not be reduced by my going away.