Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,191 Year: 5,448/9,624 Month: 473/323 Week: 113/204 Day: 13/16 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Power of the New Intelligent Design...
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 1197 (891512)
02-01-2022 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by MrIntelligentDesign
02-01-2022 4:26 AM


Re: How to tell?
If Nature rejected me, the article will end up in Zenodo,
How cute, you named the trash bin Zenodo.
But in break time, I will be probably reading all your comments.
Really? So you haven't read any comments, yet? And it's going to take you 2 weeks to read what would take everyone else 20 minutes?
I am very serious in science for I think I am right.
Well, we are your peer reviewers and we say it's trash that should be burned and then the ashes flushed down the toilet.
You have failed to provide the simplest central point of your New Intelligent Design, How Do You Identify the Difference Between a Designed Lifeform and a Natural Evolved Lifeform?

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 02-01-2022 4:26 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by dwise1, posted 02-01-2022 11:47 AM Tanypteryx has not replied
 Message 78 by Theodoric, posted 02-01-2022 12:04 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 77 of 1197 (891516)
02-01-2022 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Tanypteryx
02-01-2022 10:46 AM


Re: How to tell?
to_MrID writes:
Really? So you haven't read any comments, yet? And it's going to take you 2 weeks to read what would take everyone else 20 minutes?
He's projecting. Because he only writes in gibberish, he thinks that everybody else only write in gibberish.
Either that or his reading comprehension is really that bad.
You have failed to provide the simplest central point of your New Intelligent Design, How Do You Identify the Difference Between a Designed Lifeform and a Natural Evolved Lifeform?
It never ceases to amaze me how creationists keep demanding answers but will never ever even consider going to the actual experts who would have those answers. So many times we see creationists demand highly technical answers from "experts" like park rangers (eg, for complete detailed explanations of Grand Canyon geology), museum docents (eg, for complete detailed explanations of transitions in the fossil record), or air conditioning salesmen at a trade show (eg, for a complete detailed explanation of the atmospheric dynamics that would get refrigerants up high enough in atmosphere to endanger the ozone layer -- this actually happened!).
I think that trend of avoiding the actual experts started in the early 70's when Drs. H. Morris and Duane Gish gave a creationism presentation to scientists at the US Geologic Survey. The scientists' responses were mostly helpful attempts to correct the creationists' misunderstanding of thermodynamics and to explain to them what it really is. This disproved our attitude that creationists are incapable of learning: they learned to not talk with scientists and that has become a central principle in creationism.
If MrID really wants to know how to tell whether something is an artifact, then he needs to talk to the actual experts who do that all the time: archeologists!
But he will never ever talk with an archaeologist, because he doesn't really want an answer to his question. He just wants to continue making the false claim that scientists cannot answer his question.
Creationism is as creationism does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-01-2022 10:46 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 02-01-2022 3:09 PM dwise1 has replied
 Message 92 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 02-04-2022 3:00 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9357
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 78 of 1197 (891519)
02-01-2022 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Tanypteryx
02-01-2022 10:46 AM


Zenodo?
Ok, let me get this straight. He thinks if he uploads his crap to Zenodo it qualifies as being published scientific research. Wow.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-01-2022 10:46 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 02-04-2022 2:58 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22691
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 79 of 1197 (891523)
02-01-2022 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by dwise1
02-01-2022 11:47 AM


Re: How to tell?
MrIntelligentDesign has no cause to avoid the question of how to tell the difference between a natural object and a manufactured one. William Dembski answered that question ages ago: specified complexity. You can always tell a manufactured object because it has specified complexity. AZPaul3 alluded to this indirectly in Message 4.
Once MrIntelligentDesign adds a few sentences on specified complexity to his paper, it should be well on its way into the pages of Nature.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by dwise1, posted 02-01-2022 11:47 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-01-2022 4:33 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 83 by dwise1, posted 02-01-2022 4:55 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 93 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 02-04-2022 3:03 AM Percy has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 80 of 1197 (891526)
02-01-2022 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Percy
02-01-2022 3:09 PM


Re: How to tell?
Once MrIntelligentDesign adds a few sentences on specified complexity to his paper, it should be well on its way into the pages of Nature.
Well, that was the Old Intelligent Design this is the New Intelligent design, completely different design.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 02-01-2022 3:09 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Taq, posted 02-01-2022 4:37 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(3)
Message 81 of 1197 (891527)
02-01-2022 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Tanypteryx
02-01-2022 4:33 PM


Re: How to tell?
Tanypteryx writes:
Well, that was the Old Intelligent Design this is the New Intelligent design, completely different design.
Old Intelligent Design + More Cowbell = New Intelligent Design

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-01-2022 4:33 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-01-2022 4:43 PM Taq has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 82 of 1197 (891528)
02-01-2022 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Taq
02-01-2022 4:37 PM


Re: How to tell?
Old Intelligent Design + More Cowbell = New Intelligent Design
Tricky!

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Taq, posted 02-01-2022 4:37 PM Taq has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


(4)
Message 83 of 1197 (891530)
02-01-2022 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Percy
02-01-2022 3:09 PM


Re: How to tell?
MrIntelligentDesign has no cause to avoid the question of how to tell the difference between a natural object and a manufactured one. William Dembski answered that question ages ago: specified complexity. You can always tell a manufactured object because it has specified complexity.
My understanding of Dumbski's "specified complexity" is that it is nothing but a BS term that has no actual meaning. Of course, he also throws in a lot of technical jargon and math expressions in order to really confuse and intimidate the rubes -- one thing you can say about those "ID proponents" is that their bullshit is a lot better quality than the YECs' BS, but BS nonetheless.
The mere presence of complexity in natural objects (eg, organisms) does not classify them as "manufactured." Evolutionary processes generate large amounts of complexity and one of the most common properties of products of evolution is complexity, even irreducible complexity, such that if something displays high levels of complexity then that is a very strong indication that it had evolved (or at least had come about through evolutionary processes whether naturally or artificially).
That last informs us that complexity alone, regardless of how high a level of complexity, does not serve to distinguish between natural objects and artifacts. In experiments, we have used evolutionary processes to create extremely complex designs (irreducibly even) -- eg, a functional amplifier built on an FPGA far exceeding any human's ability to have designed (eg, it made us of electrical properties within individual components in the FPGA) which was irreducible since any single change a researcher made would break it completely, TIERRA a-life organisms evolving reproductive code far shorter than any human researcher could have imagined, etc.
Another far more common example would be most software projects of any appreciable scope. Being a retired software engineer, I had for decades observed many software projects which we developed using methods strongly suggestive of various aspects of evolutionary processes. You want to design a new product that does some things similar to another product, so you copy that other project's source code and start modifying it. Within your product you are tasked with adding a new feature which your boss wants yesterday, so you copy a similar section of the code into a new module and then modify it. And so on. What results are hundreds of source code files that interact with each other with such complexity that the programmers can no longer keep track of what's actually happening. We try to devise and implement design methodologies and protocols to keep the design process under control, but very often it's a losing battle. There are times when every agrees that the best thing would be to just start all over from scratch, but we don't have the time nor resources to do that so we just keep modifying what we already have. In effect, software evolves into every increasing levels of complexity.
Those products of evolution were manufactured, albeit in fashions that the humans involved could not fully understand. In terms of complexity, they are indistinguishable from naturally occurring products of evolution, except perhaps that naturally occurring products of evolution are far more complex.
That is why the mere presence of complexity is insufficient to identify something as being manufactured. Instead, we need other criteria which is why MrID needs to talk with the actual experts of such work, archaeologists.
We should note that in actual intelligent design the goal is to minimize complexity, especially unnecessary complexity (which occurs in great abundance in the natural world). Parsimony is far more important in intelligent design than is a penchant for Rube Goldberg travesties. Maintenance and repair on an overly complex device become virtually impossible, not to mention alignment procedures, so a clean design is the goal rather than complexity. That IDiots keep harping on complexity being an indication of "intelligent design" only proves that none of them are themselves intelligent designers, AKA engineers -- OK, maybe some of them had remained in academia but had never worked in the real world (like one of the worst EE professors I ever had).
Another feature of intelligent design is modularity, which can include (or at least allow) pin-for-pin substitutions. You want to improve part of your design? Remove that component and replace it with a new component that appears to function the same within the device but internally it is completely different. That is part of the goal in object-oriented programming (OOP) in which an object's interface to the program remains the same while how it operates internally can be changed drastically, including with all new technology. Our Plymouth minivan was just like the others of its model, except the American engine had been replaced with a Mitsubishi engine; that is something intelligent design can do, but evolution cannot.
Consider the ubiquitous windshield wiper delay mechanism. Extremely simple to implement with a simple electronic circuit, yet hardly any cars except for the most fancy and expensive ones had that feature. That is because it was at first designed evolutionarily and not intelligently. Car designers made use of the engine's vacuum line to control certain functions of the engine, so they extended use of the vacuum line to control other functions, such as controlling pop-up headlights on sports cars and intermittent windshield wipers. That was the evolutionary approach; thankfully, they then used the intelligent design approach and just completely replaced those functions with entirely different technology (ie, electronics).
So the main problem that IDiots have is that they do not understand complexity and they do not understand design. In addition to talking with archaeologists, they should talk to some practicing engineers too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 02-01-2022 3:09 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 84 of 1197 (891531)
02-01-2022 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by MrIntelligentDesign
02-01-2022 4:26 AM


Re: How to tell?
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
I will be submitting to Nature Journal a science article titled, "Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Its Replacement".
After skimming through your response to AronRa's Phylogenetic Challenge, I think we can safely expect that the rant will be rejected. If you can't even explain the most basic observation in biology, that of a phylogenetic tree, then you have neither falsified the theory of evolution nor have you created a replacement. All you have done is ignored the facts.
If you want to even have a hope of tackling the field of biology you need an explanation for why we see a phylogenetic tree. I suspect that your first task would be to learn what a phylogenetic tree is and how cladistics works.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 02-01-2022 4:26 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


(3)
Message 85 of 1197 (891532)
02-01-2022 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by MrIntelligentDesign
01-30-2022 7:54 PM


Re: How to tell?
... EVOLUTION ... Evolution ... Evolution ... Evolution ... Evolution ...
You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
In fact, I do know what it means! And all your babbling has convinced me that you have absolutely no clue what it is.
You are so strongly driven to oppose evolution, even unto the point of eliminating it. How could you possibly ever do that if you have absolutely no clue what it is that you are fighting?
It is far worse than that if you have devoted yourself to the typical creationist fallacious "logic" that your religious faith is based on the false dichotomy that it's either evolution or your creationism such that if evolution is true then your religion is false. Your recent silly "challenges" strongly indicate that that is indeed the case; eg:
YOU WILL DENOUNCE Evolution and you will support me if you cannot answer your own post, and I will give you how the new ID could answer that simple categorization of two extremes - for origin topic, AGREE? .. ohhh, if you read my original OP, you had already answered that...
Since you have no clue what evolution is, all your attempts to defeat it are doomed to failure. Which means that your creationism will fail and be proven wrong. In which case your "logic" will demand that you forsake your religion.
What an idiot! The only endeavor that has ever succeeded in disproving God is creationism! The only reason why creationism succeeds in disproving God is because that is what its lies demand and you are too stupid to realize how fallacious its lies are.
Please do yourself a really big favor: Learn something!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 01-30-2022 7:54 PM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Theodoric, posted 02-01-2022 6:40 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 87 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-01-2022 7:32 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9357
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(3)
Message 86 of 1197 (891533)
02-01-2022 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by dwise1
02-01-2022 5:57 PM


Re: How to tell?
Time for the classic movie scene.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by dwise1, posted 02-01-2022 5:57 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 87 of 1197 (891535)
02-01-2022 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by dwise1
02-01-2022 5:57 PM


Re: How to tell?
dwise1 writes:
It is far worse than that if you have devoted yourself to the typical creationist fallacious "logic" that your religious faith is based on the false dichotomy that it's either evolution or your creationism such that if evolution is true then your religion is false. Your recent silly "challenges" strongly indicate that that is indeed the case; eg:
MrID Rebel writes:
YOU WILL DENOUNCE Evolution and you will support me if you cannot answer your own post, and I will give you how the new ID could answer that simple categorization of two extremes - for origin topic, AGREE? .. ohhh, if you read my original OP, you had already answered that...
That was the best paragraph so far. I did a double take and a WTF when I first read it. It was like hearing a neophyte Jesus Freak from 1976.
Realistically, I feel confident that MrID will never be an intellectual threat to any science and that he will not understand anything you wrote.
His genes are potentially still in the mix and the thought of him influencing the intellectual development of children saddens me.
And there are still a huge shitbag full of Christian churches spewing this crap over every communications system they can contaminate, but they rarely stay for long periods on forums where they are repeatedly asked for evidence.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by dwise1, posted 02-01-2022 5:57 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 02-01-2022 8:11 PM Tanypteryx has not replied
 Message 90 by dwise1, posted 02-03-2022 5:29 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 88 of 1197 (891537)
02-01-2022 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Tanypteryx
02-01-2022 7:32 PM


Re: How to tell?
Tanypteryx writes:
And there are still a huge shitbag full of Christian churches spewing this crap over every communications system they can contaminate, but they rarely stay for long periods on forums where they are repeatedly asked for evidence.
Correct.
Since the 1950s the Christian Cult of Willful Ignorance and Deceit has had a policy of AVOIDANCE; they created AVOIDANCE schools certified by AVOIDANCE Accreditation Boards listening to AVOIDANCE radio and TV, getting all their news from AVOIDANCE news shows on AVOIDANCE channels.
Their biggest threat and fear though is that members might actually read the Bible and learn that their pastors and brothers and priests and elders have ALL been lying to them.

My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-01-2022 7:32 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


(2)
Message 89 of 1197 (891547)
02-02-2022 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by MrIntelligentDesign
01-31-2022 12:51 AM


Re: How to tell?
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
Do you want me to copy and paste for you the whole article? Or just go there and read and come here for more?
I am an advocate of Intelligent Design. You would think that I am sympathetic to your position.
But I did read your links and paper(s).... and they make no sense at all. They do not even begin to answer any of the questions put forward so far. I have to agree with many of the commenters here that it comes off as gibberish.
I don't know if this is a language thing, as I dont think English is your native tongue. But you need to explain yourself better. This might be a good venue to try it before submitting your papers elsewhere.
Edited by WookieeB, : No reason given.

Edited by WookieeB, : No reason given.

Edited by WookieeB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 01-31-2022 12:51 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 90 of 1197 (891578)
02-03-2022 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Tanypteryx
02-01-2022 7:32 PM


Re: How to tell?
I did a double take and a WTF when I first read it. It was like hearing a neophyte Jesus Freak from 1976.
My experience with the Jesus Freak Movement was around 1970, a couple years after it was just getting started, and most things are still the same half a century later. While some things have changed (eg, they are no longer so hard-core into hyper-aggressive proselytizing, demonology, and End-Time prophecies having evolved into less virulent forms by having gotten a life with families, careers, and home mortgages), many things remain the same even half a century later, including beliefs that the Bible contains no error and that finding even one single error in the Bible would require that you reject it and become a hedonistic atheist (I used to correspond with a Canadian YEC who insisted on that most vehemently).
That initial Jesus Freak experience with fundamentalist beliefs helped to inform me in my experiences with creationists since 1981. Repeatedly, creationists would insist that if their claims were found to be wrong, if evolution were found to be true, then that would disprove Scripture which in turn would either disprove God or reveal God to be unworthy of worship (being such a liar). IOW, they were making their faith dependent on creationism and their creationist claims such that the only alternative would be atheism -- we see this in MrID's "challenges"; eg, in Message 52, Message 55, Message 56, Message 59.
Here are some creationist quotes that I have collected to illustrate how they insist that Scripture must take precedence over reality and also that being faced with reality poses a danger to their faith:
quote:
"No geological difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
(Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research, Biblical Cosmology, page 33)
quote:
"The data of geology, in our view, should be interpreted in light of Scripture, rather than distorting Scripture to accommodate current geological philosophy."
(Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research, Science, Scripture, and the Young Earth, page 6)
quote:
"There seems to be no possible way to avoid the conclusion that if the Bible and Christianity are true at all, the geologic ages must be rejected altogether."
(Henry Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974 [1985 2nd ed.], p. 255)
quote:
"If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning."
(John Morris as reported in "The 1986 International Conference on Creationism" by Robert Schadewald, Creation/Evolution Newsletter, Volume 6, Number 5, September/October 1986, NCSE, pp 8-14.)
quote:
"If evolution is true, then the Bible is not true."
(John L. Groenlund, What is the Purpose of Creation Ministry, in Institute for Creation Research Back to Genesis Report No. 78, June 1995)
quote:
"[Glenn R. Morton, practicing petroleum geologist and staunch creationist, asked John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR)], 'How old is the earth?' 'If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning.' Morton then said that he had hired several graduates of Christian Heritage College [which formerly housed the ICR], and that all of them suffered severe crises of faith. They were utterly unprepared to face the geological facts every petroleum geologist deals with on a daily basis."
("The 1986 International Conference on Creationism" by Robert Schadewald, Creation/Evolution Newsletter, Volume 6, Number 5, September/October 1986, NCSE, pp 8-14.)
And by Conrad Hyers, PhD in Theology and Philosophy of Religion, Professor of Religion, ordained Presbyterian minister, and author of many books on religion:
quote:
"It may be true that scientism and evolutionism (not science and evolution) are among the causes of atheism and materialism. It is at least equally true that biblical literalism, from its earlier flat-earth and geocentric forms to its recent young-earth and flood-geology forms, is one of the major causes of atheism and materialism. Many scientists and intellectuals have simply taken the literalists at their word and rejected biblical materials as being superseded or contradicted by modern science. Without having in hand a clear and persuasive alternative, they have concluded that it is nobler to be damned by the literalists than to dismiss the best testimony of research and reason. Intellectual honesty and integrity demand it."
(Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science, John Knox Press, Atlanta, Georgia, 1984, page 26
Creationists appear to be convinced that science disproves God or at least is trying to. But since it is humanly impossible to work objectively with the supernatural, it is clearly impossible to either or disprove God. Science could never disprove God, nor would it ever have any reason to attempt to do that. Even the most rabidly anti-God anti-theist could never disprove God. Nor is it possible to prove God.
However, creationism succeeds in disproving God, something that nothing else has been able to do. But it can succeed only if you accept its premises and apply them to the following syllogism:
A. If X is true, then that disproves God.
B. X is indeed true.
C. Therefore, God is disproven.
That condition X can take many forms; eg:
  • The earth is old.
  • Evolution is true.
  • There are errors in the Bible.
  • Creationist claims are wrong.
  • The world is indeed as we find it to be.
Of course, Premise A in the creationist's syllogism is false. In formal logic, a valid syllogism proves its conclusion to be true if and only if all its premises are true. Since Premise A is false, that does not prove Conclusion C to be true (nor does it prove the conclusion to be false, but rather merely that we cannot conclude anything about the truth of the conclusion -- so nobody try to seize upon this to prove God).
It is only by accepting the false Premise A as being true, as creationists do immediately and without giving it a thought, does Premise B, which is true, lead to the faulty conclusion that God is disproven. Creationists have bought into this exercise in sophistry to the point that the only way that they can keep God from being disproven is to deny the truth of Premise B.
They must deny reality at all costs as if their faith depends on it, because it does. Rather they should instead abandon that false Premise A by realizing that reality actually does not disprove God (rather it's just your own false and foolish ideas about God that are being disproven by reality).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-01-2022 7:32 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024