|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Existence of God | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: The worked stone stands out only because we have an understandingof what a worked stone looks like. Eg, stone hendge has stones that show marks consistent with them being worked. Show a flint arrowhead to a child and they will, most likely,just think it's a neat stone. Even experts may debate the manufacturedness of artifacts ... take the undersea structures I mentioned in the previous post ... the hand of man is not even easy to identify!! quote: You might ... I would need to analyse the pattern first. Immediately concluding an intelligence (or even that it IS apattern) would be UNscientific and irrational. You have based the assumption of intelligence on the absenceof a phenomenon that we do not KNOW to be absent. quote: According to the judeo-christian religions and my meagre observationsof humanity people ARE free to do as they please ... and do with alarming frequency across the whole of recorded history. I don't see acknowledging a god that says 'Do as you like, I'llpunish you for it but won't stop you' would be a bar to any kind of behaviour -- do you have children? quote: If you do not know the purpose of the arrangement, how do youknow there is one? How do you know that this is the only arrangement of componentsthat could act in a similar fashion to this object ... and thus assess the 'improbability' of the arrangement? Without prior knowledge of the 'components' and their frequencyacross the universe, how can you assign an 'improbability' to the components? quote: Define significant ... don't want to sound too 'it's all how youdefine stuff' BUT 'significant is subjective in the extreme. There's plenty you can do to cells without killing them ... youmay change their function, but not necessarily kill the cell. quote: How big is the universe? We can only see a fraction of it, and thet 'visibility' is increasingat 1 light year per year. If the universe is extremely vast, then the probability ofthese arrangements starts to dwindle -- why? There are only a finite number of quantum states ... someone has estimated that an EXACT duplicate of our section of the universe MUST exist within a finite distance (though huge) of us. (There were articles recently in Scientific American and New Scientist on this). Arguments based upon supposed liklihood are arguments from incredulity, and based upon insufficient knowledge of theuniverse to be relied upon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Weyland Inactive Member |
quote: You would not be correct in assuming intelligent interference.If you came across stone circles like these : If you saw regular hexagonal stones like ones show at the bottom of this page:http://www.raphaelk.co.uk/...0Ireland/Northern%20Ireland.htm would you infer divine influence or natural formation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quiz Inactive Member |
quote: Who said you are going to go to hell if you break any of the commandments? and who said it was eternal?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quiz Inactive Member |
if they are condeming you they are wrong, they are doing exactly what only god can do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quiz Inactive Member |
Wow. I am confused with your ways they are interesting. My question is why make up a god if there is already one? oh wait thats because you are probably out there trying to be your self and dont want to follow his rules. Laugh is that the only reason you don't believe in him, because you dont agree with him, wow. So if you dont agree with me that means I dont exists also don't it. Laugh thats really good philosphy I wish I could believe that.
-Quiz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quiz Inactive Member |
I cant help but make that loud noise when you slide your finger up and down on your lips, BPHPHPHPHPHP!
-Quiz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Can't speak for IrishRockHound (natch) but not agreeing with
the message of the bible and not beleiving in god are two different things. Personally I feel that the teachings of Jesus in the new testamentare admirable, it's a pity so few people follow those ideas. I don't believe in Jesus's divinity, and I have strong doubts over his existence in reality. The christian god doesn't interact ... he promised not to, andit would mess with his whole 'free-will' experiment ... so his existence cannot prevent behaviour. I have a suspicion that religions came about as a means ofcrowd control.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4550 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
quote:Are you trying to give your faith a bad name? Apparently it has failed to instill any semblance of kindness or understanding in you, which is not a great thing to advertise. One more reason I believe good Christians were just good people to begin with. Faith and virtue in general have completely lost any logical connection in my eyes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4436 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
Eh?
Funny noises are indeed amusing, but I fail to see what it has to do with the existance of a divine being. Care to explain? The Rock Hound ------------------"They say there's a heaven for those who wait, Some say it's better but I say it ain't, I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, The sinners have much more fun."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joralex Inactive Member |
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.
The common denominator is not necessarily the correlation to human design. The feature that indicates 'design' is a high improbability with what Dembski terms 'specificity'. How then do we differentiate between these "intelligently designed" patterns and their "natural" surroundings.
Wrong contrast. Both of these things that you wish to differentiate exhibit a highly improbable arrangement AND a manifest purpose. IOW, first you say that we can recognize human-like design patterns because they contrast completely with patterns found in nature.
I don't think that I said this (I certainly didn't mean it this way) but let's go on... Then you turn around and say that nature must be intelligently designed because its patterns are so similar to human-like design.
No. Nature is intelligently designed because it possesses an attribute that is found only in intelligently designed objects - complex specified information (CSI)! The contention is that we can distinguish intelligent human design from natural processes.
In many ways this isn't possible. Nature exhibits much of what a super-intelligent (human) being would have done had that being been the creator of that nature. For example, the order, the co-dependence (symbiotic relationships), the fine-tuning of 'natural' constants, the common features amongst the immense variety of living organisms, and others. What more then can be said of natural processes; other than that they do not exhibit the patterns of intelligent human design?
We're not smart enough to have 'designed' nature but an entity such as God would have no problem. Also, note how in hindsight we are able to make sense of God's creation - it's called 'science'. Joralex
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 821 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
complex specified information (CSI)!
WTF is this?!!! Admit this is just a made up measurement so you can sound intelligent. "All sound and fury signifying nothing"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
CSI is a term used in the ID community. Joralex can be forgiven for thinking that those folks do know what they are talking about. However, I have yet to see it defined in a way that can be used. We'll have to see if a definition appears here now.
Do NOT hold your breath.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Joralex, maybe you missed my post?
I'll restate my question for you here. 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, and/or 2) do not have the intelligence to ever understand? ------------------"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joralex Inactive Member |
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.
Not "when pressed" but rather when I saw that it was going nowhere. How does one convince a person that will stop at nothing to advance materialistic Naturalism? I believe that this isn't possible. Do you concede that the eye does not constitute evidence of design?
I believe that you know the answer to that question. 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.
With what purpose? 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.
No empirical evidence would be "proof" of design (or of natural evolution). The matter is not about "proof", it is about rational justification and inferencing the best explanation. I maintain that materialistic naturalism is not the best rational explanation but rather that it is the preferred explanation. Assuming my hypothesis, it is an easy matter to see why/how the evidence is then interpreted according to materialistc requirements. Joralex
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Joralex, should we assume in future threads that if someone is arguing for naturalism, you're simply not going to respond to them?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024