|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,912 Year: 4,169/9,624 Month: 1,040/974 Week: 367/286 Day: 10/13 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Existence of God | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote: Blame me for your logical inconsistencies... again. Ugghhh, indeed.
quote: quote: So which is it?
quote: How is this different from "because the intelligent person couldn't possibly have ignored the contradictions, they must not be there?"
quote: Big fat false dilemna, all by itself.
quote: You wanna move the goalposts, don't blame me for taking a shot at the new goal.
quote: You said it. Not me.
quote: I have this funny quirk where I don't simply accept what people tell me as given fact. When someone makes a statement, I elaborate, or respond, or dear God, even ask a further question. It's probably that perverse pleasure thing again. Man, those further questions are hot.
quote: Not if you persist in using logical fallacies as arguments, no. Why would I give any consideration to such tactics? As it happens, Joralex, I always work from the assumption that I might be wrong. But it's still up to you (or anyone else arguing contrary to what I believe) to show me why that would be. It's not my fault if you fail to do so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joralex Inactive Member |
"Joralex, what is your criteria for evaluating the intelligence of an intelligent design? Upon what basis, for example, do you detect and qualify the intelligence underlying protista design?"
The first (and, to many, only) aim of ID Theory is the detection of intelligent design - not the 'qualification' thereof. The basis for detection of intelligent design is very simple : if one cannot reasonably explain an observation by chance, natural law, or combinations thereof, then the only remaining alternative is intelligent design. As I've stated before, this is something that has been done for a very long time and today is manifest in areas such as forensic sciences, archaeology, AI, cryptography, SETI and others. Yet, the Naturalist avoids acknowledging this fact as much as vampires avoid silver and garlic. Why do you think they would do this? Joralex
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1423 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
quote:It's convenient that after cursory examination and predictable disqualification of explanations that have some hope of carrying empirical weight, we can conclude intelligent design. This is understandable in forensics and archaeology, where artifacts are known to have been intelligently designed in the first place and humans are the likely agents. However, things like the bacterial flagellum would have to have been 'designed' hundreds of millions of years ago. Shouldn't the likelihood of intelligent design be calculated independently, and accepted or rejected like the other alternatives? Wouldn't natural processes be the more reasonable explanation? Let me put it this way. If an archaeologist claimed to have found a human artifact between strata that were hundreds of millions of years old, we would be correct in concluding design, namely fraud. Your inference is just as suspect. ------------------The bear thought his son could talk in space about the time matter has to rotate but twisted heaven instead. -Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The basis for detection of intelligent design is very simple : if one cannot reasonably explain an observation by chance, natural law, or combinations thereof, then the only remaining alternative is intelligent design. Ah, so it's a God of the Gaps theory. Hardly resilient in the face of advancing knowledge, don't you think?
Yet, the Naturalist avoids acknowledging this fact as much as vampires avoid silver and garlic. Why do you think they would do this? Because those fields don't attempt to infer the existence of deisgners from objects, as they don't have to. The existence of humans can be directly established. Once you have the existence of humans known, you can infer their presence from their artifacts. You're attempting to skip that first step. Before you can infer the presence of God from what you see as his design, you have to infer his existence. That can't be done from objects. This is a subtle distinction, and one I expect you'll totally miss. Let the ad hominem ensue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4466 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
Aw, all that time I spent on my last post, and I get no response.
Well, I think I'll bow out now. It doesn't look like I'm needed. The Rock Hound
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
quote: I'm glad to see you bring up this point, crashfrog. It does a good job of describing some things I've often contemplated. It has been said, for instance, that if one finds a radio in the wilderness, one must infer design. Why do we infer this? Compared to what? The surrounding flora and fauna from which we should, then, not infer design? If it is argued that God designed everything that is otherwise described as "natural", then we are not distinguishing design (in the radio) from non-design, but rather human design as distinguishable from God's design. Thus, we can distinguish human design from everything else. This "everything else" can be termed "other". How then do we compare the "other" to itself? We can't say that the "other" must be God designed because it looks like human designed things. If that were so we would not have been able to distinguish between the radio and the "other" in the first place. We also can't say that the "other" was designed by God because it looks different than "natural" things. If God designed all the "other", then there are no "natural" things to compare it with. Likewise, if all the "other" is simply "natural", we cannot attribute design to it because we have no examples of God designed things with which to make a comparison. You are right, crashfrog. One must first infer God in order to infer Godly design. Namaste' Amlodhi [This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-20-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So, how do we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one which we; 1) do not currently understand but may in the future, or 2) do not have the intelligence to ever understand? According to Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box", the biological origins of the mammalian blood clotting mechanism was an example of IC, and therefore indicated ID. Problem was that through research and study, a more rudimentary blood clotting mechanism was found with clear evolutionary pathways. So, in a nutshell, I'd like you to explain what is the difference between saying "We don't know" and "Godidit"? To me, the difference is clear; the former spurs more inquiry and research, and the latter stops both in their tracks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Yes ... that's why I started the post by pointing out thatit was my opinion. I don't feel that this detracts from the suggestion.
quote: It increasingly removes the requirement for the hand of Godin the understood aspects of our universe. What I said was, if that trend continues, we push therequirement for god(s) further and further away. quote: This analogy does not match the suggestion given. We do not beleive there to be interaction between the 'mathsgod' and our pen every time we do a long division. In former times people DID beleive in divine explanations foraspects of our world which are now understood ... like thunder and lightening for example -- Zeus's spears or Thor running amok in the heavens .. or whatever. As phenomenon in the natural world become understood, the need fordivine intervention disappears. Ultimately IF science finds a way in which the universe couldcome into being by purely natural, quantifiable, measurable means then we won't need to fall back on god(s) ... we may discover that there is a god by this very same process ... who knows. All I was saying is that rainbows are not a covenant with godthat he will not try to wipe us out again, they are formed by white light refracting through raindrops and splitting. quote: But it might eliminate the need for supposing a creator.
quote: This is exactly the kind of drivel I am talking about ... youdon't understand where intellect comes from so you assume there must be a god to give it to us!!! The notion is stated, rather than supported.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: The problem here is that one cannot infer design from the existenceof a radio .... only from one's prior knowledge about manufactured items. Suppose you were completely alien to this world and had no frameof reference for objects found here. What about the radio would suggest design?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joralex Inactive Member |
Yes ... that's why I started the post by pointing out that
it was my opinion. I don't feel that this detracts from the suggestion. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, you are using the highly fallacious argument that our being able to understand/explain things eliminates the existence of God. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It increasingly removes the requirement for the hand of Godin the understood aspects of our universe. What I said was, if that trend continues, we push therequirement for god(s) further and further away. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lessee... when I was born I didn't even know what the concept of a number was, let alone how to use them. Today I "understand" enough about numbers that I can do all sorts of things with them. So, does that understanding eliminate the existence of all those that created the mathematical system that we have today? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This analogy does not match the suggestion given. We do not beleive there to be interaction between the 'mathsgod' and our pen every time we do a long division. In former times people DID beleive in divine explanations foraspects of our world which are now understood ... like thunder and lightening for example -- Zeus's spears or Thor running amok in the heavens .. or whatever. As phenomenon in the natural world become understood, the need fordivine intervention disappears. Ultimately IF science finds a way in which the universe couldcome into being by purely natural, quantifiable, measurable means then we won't need to fall back on god(s) ... we may discover that there is a god by this very same process ... who knows. All I was saying is that rainbows are not a covenant with godthat he will not try to wipe us out again, they are formed by white light refracting through raindrops and splitting. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Understanding something doesn't do squat towards eliminating the Creator of that something. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But it might eliminate the need for supposing a creator.
Really? Hmmm... there's a recurring theme in your words and I'm forced to call you on it. Would you mind telling me of one thing, just one, that you think science truly understands? quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Besides, who do you think gave you the mind/intellect that enables you to learn? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is exactly the kind of drivel I am talking about ... youdon't understand where intellect comes from so you assume there must be a god to give it to us!!! The notion is stated, rather than supported.
I didn't think it necessary to have to spell it out - I was wrong. Science / good reasoning must be guided by the inference to the best explanation. This 'best explanation' should employ accepted rules of logic in combination with the empirical evidence / observations. Given all this, the best inference is that there is a God that is the Creator of all things. You say that "the notion is stated, rather than supported" - I totally disagree. The notion is very well supported except that you et al. refuse to accept the support as such and instead interpret the evidence so as to support YOUR chosen beliefs. For example, consider elaborate symbiotic relationships. These are very revealing of a purposeful design - the interconnection of a single creation - yet you choose to see them as an "evolved mechanism for survival". I can't help that you wish to see things a certain way. So stop saying that it "isn't supported" - it is amply supported, you et al. merely choose to ignore the evidence via an alternate interpretation that is suited to support your worldview. Joralex
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joralex Inactive Member |
The problem here is that one cannot infer design from the existence
of a radio .... only from one's prior knowledge about manufactured items. Not true! In an excavation you may may find thousands of stones yet the stone that has been 'worked' towards a purpose (e.g., to make an arrowhead) stands out. If you came across the following pattern scratched on the rock of another planet: . - ... ... - .. - ... .... ..... - ... - .... - ..... ...... ....... - .... - ..... - ....... you would immediately conclude intelligence (i.e., purposeful design) behind the pattern and you'd be logically & scientifically correct in your conclusion since there are no naturally-occurring phenomena that generate such patterns. Examples of this are literally infinite in number. I assure you, if SETI ever received a signal like the above pattern, they would have no doubt whatsoever that ET is out there even though they'd have no idea of what/who ET is. Same difference... God has left His "fingerprints" everywhere except that many people simply prefer to interpret those fingerprints as something else. After all, if they acknowledged them as belonging to God then they are no longer "free" to do their own thing and we can't have that, can we? Suppose you were completely alien to this world and had no frameof reference for objects found here. What about the radio would suggest design? Easy - I would see a highly improbable arrangement of highly improbable "components" coexisting for a unified purpose (even if that purpose is unknown). A better example than your radio is a single cell : there are hundreds of billions of atoms in a specific arrangement that makes this arrangement a living entity. Change the arrangement in any significant way and the cell dies. How did this arrangement come to be? Answer : it's a copy of its "parent".How did the first arrangement come to be? Answer : "matter arranged itself over millions of years". Uhhh... you may choose to believe that, we don't! Joralex
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
Hi Peter,
quote: Of course you are right and I didn't intend to suggest otherwise. I was simply starting with the usually stated premise that we can distinguish the radio from its natural surroundings. I do agree that our ability to make this distinction is a result of prior knowledge and consequent recognition of human manufacturing techniques. Namaste' Amlodhi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
Hi Joralex,
quote: Again, this is my question. You give several examples of recognizable patterns. However, we only attribute "intelligent design" to those patterns that exhibit a remarkable similarity to patterns we know to be of human design. How then do we differentiate between these "intelligently designed" patterns and their "natural" surroundings. IOW, first you say that we can recognize human-like design patterns because they contrast completely with patterns found in nature. Then you turn around and say that nature must be intelligently designed because its patterns are so similar to human-like design. The contention is that we can distinguish intelligent human design from natural processes. What more then can be said of natural processes; other than that they do not exhibit the patterns of intelligent human design? Namaste' Amlodhi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6041 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
quote: In the recent past, you gave the eye and vision as such an example, in the thread you started on the evolution of the eye. You dropped all discussion of the example when pressed. Do you concede that the eye does not constitute evidence of design? If you concede, that's fine with me. If you don't concede, that thread is still waiting. I've posted several reminders of some of the hanging questions. If you feel that symbiotic relations are proof of design, please open a thread on the topic, since a detailed discusssion of symbiosis would be off topic in this forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: As to the really part .... well, yes, increased understandingof a system/phenomenon/artifact may eliminate the suggestion of a creator from the list of possibilities. Take deep sea formations, for example, some people suppose thatthere are ruins from ancient (circa 11,000 years ago) cities, while others say they are natural formations. Increased understanding of geology/erosion AND of the structuresthemselves will likely lead down one track or the other ... possibly concluding that they are so likely to be natural as to discount the other possibility. As to the second point ... I'll be pedantic for a second ...science understands nothing, people do. The process of science allows us to develop understanding ofthe observations that we make. With enough time and effort (and advancement for some types of observation) we can gain sufficient understanding of natural events to preclude certain explanations ... like Thor makes thunder and lightning. Scientific explanations are not always correct, and never completeI'll give you that, but they are often sufficient. That is there are no counter-examples that can refute sufficiently 'understood' aspects of the natural/physical/chemical world. quote: You seem to be using 'inference' to mean 'leap of logic'. What observations are there that lead to such an inference?
quote: Problem with evidence .... if you have evidence that genuinely, andafter peer review etc. etc. supports multiple view points simultaneously then the evidence doesn't provide a conclusive route ... and alternative evidence must be sought. Science does this (amongst other ways) by taking a hypothesis and considering what observation would make it false. If you find that observation it's back to the drawing board. The problem I see is that the 'evidence' used to support theexistence of a god doesn't stand up to scrutiny. quote: Biologists can point to examples of 'systems' that are suggestiveof a route to such complex symbionts, they can propose an evolutionary route, and the suggested routes are often borne out by other observations. The key point being that by NOT automatically assuming god one investigates. You on the other hand just keep saying 'This is so obviously thework of God, that it must be the work of God.' Does that sound logical or systematic to you?
quote: But my worldview is supported by further evidence ... observationsthat are expected from the theory. Your worldview is unsupportable .... that's why you need faith. Premise: 'God created the universe and everything in it.'Refutation .... ? Predictions ... ? Primary Evidence ...?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024