|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who designed the ID designer(s)? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
OK. So as long as one genuinely believes that there is objective empirical scientific evidence it isn't faith. Right? No, not according to the definition of faith that RAZD is using here in this thread. But, this thread is for the specific case of the Intelligent Designer.
Now to my mind his isn't faith. This is evidence and reasoning (albeit evidence which isn't as reliable as he believes it to be). Do you think this is faith? Not that particular part, but according to the definition in this thread, the position of there being a designer would be because the person does not actually have the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: Not that particular part, but according to the definition in this thread, the position of there being a designer would be because the person does not actually have the evidence. But they honestly beieve that they do have the requisite evidence. So how is this different to Piltdown man (for example) in terms of being a faith based conclusion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Nuggin writes: Eventually, they are going to say there was a magical wizard who was the first designer and that they don't need to explain where he came from because it's magic. Well what if they don't do that? What if they cite the evidence on which they believe Intelligent Design? What if after you demonstrate to them why this evidence is not as good as the evidence for naturalistic answers they say "Fair enough. My previous belief was based on poor evidence. I realise this now"....? Did they previously believe ID on the basis of faith or just poor reasoning and/or ignorance regarding evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But they honestly beieve that they do have the requisite evidence. So how is this different to Piltdown man (for example) in terms of being a faith based conclusion? Because of the nature of the Intelligent Designer, itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: Because of the nature of the Intelligent Designer, itself. What "nature"...?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What "nature"...? As proposed by IDists...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: As proposed by IDists... But not by my hypothetical IDist. Why is he tarred with the "faith" brush....?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But not by my hypothetical IDist. Why is he tarred with the "faith" brush....? For clarity's sake:
Well let's consider a hypothetical IDist. An IDist who has genuinely concluded ID on the basis of what he genuinely (albeit wrongly) considers to be objective empirical scientific evidence. He is asked - "Who designed the designer?" After some thought our evidence based IDist responds - "I don't know. But parsimoniously I guess something has to exist first. And there is good evidence for a designer so it might as well be that designer. If any evidence of a prior designer to that one comes to my knowledge I will revise my answer accordingly". Now to my mind his isn't faith. This is evidence and reasoning (albeit evidence which isn't as reliable as he believes it to be). Do you think this is faith? Looks like he's on his way to being a #4 to me:
quote: But I suppose if he's in limbo and hasn't actually taken a position on who designed the designer, then he might not actually be in a position of faith... I dunno.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Well what if they don't do that? What if they cite the evidence on which they believe Intelligent Design? Fruit of the poisonous tree. You are creating a "hypothetical IDist", but that person is merely exposing a position they've been tricked into by Creationists intent of installing a theocracy. He may not feel as though what he is saying is a religious belief, but that doesn't change what it is. Strike "religion" and replace it with "racism" and let's have another look. What if a hypothetical Jew hater complained about their wickedness, their horns, their tails? What if he were quoting off pro-Hitler webpages? Would he be racist? Even if he said, "No, I really believe these things are true. I don't dislike Jews, they are just an inferior race and must be exterminated. Honestly." His position is racist. He comes to it from information give to him by racists. His arguments are coached for him by racists. It's racism top to bottom. The same is true here. A Creationists is a creationist is a creationist. Deep down, they are all saying that the Bible is literally verbatim true and that the Earth is 6000 years old. Some of them pretend to say otherwise because they've found that their real argument is unconvincing. But none of them ACTUALLY believe anything but YEC. The rest is all just dishonesty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
His tentative position is taken on the basis of the objective empirical scientific evidence that he genuinely believes to exist plus parsimony.
It can certainly be wrong. But How can that be faith?
CS writes: Looks like he's on his way to being a #4 to me: Look RAZ can make a load of flawed definitions, provide a bunch of scales based on those flawed definitions and then construct a deductive proof based on these definitions and scales. It is all internally consistent and kinda convincing in it's own circular RAZlike way. But the idea that you can prove that a particular belief must be faith based rather than derived from poor reasoning or poor evidence or whatever is just silly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Nuggin writes: Deep down, they are all saying that the Bible is literally verbatim true and that the Earth is 6000 years old. Obviously not if the Intelligent Design proponent in question is a Hindu (or indeed any other form of non-Christian IDist)
quote: Creation, Karma, and Intelligent Design in Nyaya and Vedanta
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
"Fair enough. My previous belief was based on poor evidence. I realise this now"
Can you conceive of an IDist that would do this and change their mind if they were shown their evidence was false? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bob123 Junior Member (Idle past 4673 days) Posts: 1 Joined: |
It is unimaginable to me how not one but thousands of well educated academics can entire lifetimes debating and researching how things have come to be. I’m talking about the evolution vs. creationism vs. intelligent design vs. whatever conundrum. It’s really a simple topic and not worthy of the time and energy expended on it. I can say with certainty that I have never researched this topic none and never will because there is nothing to research. It’s all conjecture and always will be. I know with 100% certainty that the answer not attainable because of one simple unarguable truth: Since all beginnings have a beginning, there is no true beginning to anything. Since there is no true beginning, you can never ascertain the essence or how of anything. You can only observe what is observable and the paradox created by the what happened before that? question makes the how question unsolvable - actually barely even a valid question. Simply put, there are unknown variables that can never be proven or otherwise derived. So, whether you believe in intelligent design, randomness or directed evolution, it’s irrelevant because any 6 year old can always legitimately ask: What happened before that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
His tentative position is taken on the basis of the objective empirical scientific evidence that he genuinely believes to exist plus parsimony. It can certainly be wrong. But How can that be faith? I dunno, man, but you're crazy! my response would be the same as it was:
quote: But the idea that you can prove that a particular belief must be faith based rather than derived from poor reasoning or poor evidence or whatever is just silly. That's what I said... But its not really about the "motivation for a belief" but "this entity has these properties that prevent it from having true evidence for it therefore we'd have to rely on faith to accept it".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Whether such an IDist actually exists or not has little bearing on the silliness of the idea that a deductive proof has been provided.
Theo writes: Can you conceive of an IDist that would do this and change their mind if they were shown their evidence was false? Darwin himself would surely qualify?
Darwin in his autobiography writes: The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws. The full extract is well worth a read.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024