Existence of God

quote:

---

That's right, Dan - cut and paste quotations so as to make it appear as if there is logical inconsistency. Ugghhh!

---

Blame me for your logical inconsistencies... again.Ugghhh, indeed.

quote:

---

Regardless... judging by the second statement, your stance seems to be that either there are no contradictions in the bible,

​

quote:

---

That's right.

---

---

quote:

---

And given that the latter is ridiculous, there must be no contradictions?

​

quote:

---

That is not my conclusion, and you know it.

---

---

So which is it?

quote:

---

My conclusion is more like this : given that the latter is ridiculous, then it is reasonable to assume that what you regard as a 'contradiction' was examined and resolved in his/her mind and to his/her intellectual satisfaction.

---

How is this different from "because the intelligent person couldn't possibly have ignored the contradictions, they must not be there?"

quote:

---

Failing to arrive at this conclusion you must assume that these people are either outright dishonest or are totally ignoring the facts.

---

Big fat false dilemna, all by itself.

quote:

---

I see... so when you strike out on one line you shift to another.

---

You wanna move the goalposts, don't blame me for taking a shot at the new goal.

quote:

---

This is why I seldom spend too much time debating these issues with people such as yourself - you're going to be right no matter what.

---

You said it. Not me.

quote:

---

Once a question is answered you simply twist the question in another direction or you change the subject or you toss out another question (there's an infinite number of those you know).

---

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:

---

The bottom line is what I call 'invincible ignorance' - there is no possible way to "answer" you to the point where you will admit "Hey, maybe I'm wrong here and maybe I should give the other side some real consideration."

---

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, 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

quote:

---

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.

---

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

Ah, so it's a God of the Gaps theory. Hardly resilient in the face of advancing knowledge, don't you think? 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.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by crashfrog

​

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.

---

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]

quote:

---

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.

---

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, or2) 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.

quote:

---

You are here making an assumption that you cannot empirically prove in any way (i.e., the assumption is metaphysical in nature).

---

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 God
in the understood aspects of our universe.What I said was, if that trend continues, we push the
requirement 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 'maths
god' and our pen every time we do a long division.In former times people DID beleive in divine explanations for
aspects 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 for
divine intervention disappears.Ultimately IF science finds a way in which the universe could
come 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 god
that 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.

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 ... you
don'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.

quote:

---

It has been said, for instance, that if one finds a radio in the wilderness, one must infer design

---

The problem here is that one cannot infer design from the existence
of a radio .... only from one's prior knowledge about manufactured
items.Suppose you were completely alien to this world and had no frame
of reference for objects found here. What about the radio would
suggest design?

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 God
in the understood aspects of our universe.What I said was, if that trend continues, we push the
requirement 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 'maths
god' and our pen every time we do a long division.In former times people DID beleive in divine explanations for
aspects 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 for
divine intervention disappears.Ultimately IF science finds a way in which the universe could
come 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 god
that 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 ... you
don'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

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 frame
of 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

Hi Peter,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter

​

. . . one cannot infer design from the existence
of a radio .... only from one's prior knowledge about manufactured
items.

---

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

Hi Joralex,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joralex

​

If you came across (a sequentially increasing) pattern scratched on the rock of another planet . . . you would immediately conclude intelligence (i.e., purposeful design) behind the pattern. . .

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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?

---

As to the really part .... well, yes, increased understanding
of 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 that
there 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 structures
themselves 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 of
the 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 complete
I'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:

---

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 seem to be using 'inference' to mean 'leap of logic'.What observations are there that lead to such an inference?

quote:

---

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.

---

Problem with evidence .... if you have evidence that genuinely, and
after 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 the
existence of a god doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

quote:

---

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.

---

Biologists can point to examples of 'systems' that are suggestive
of 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 the
work of God, that it must be the work of God.'Does that sound logical or systematic to you?

quote:

---

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.

---

But my worldview is supported by further evidence ... observations
that 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 ...?