Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
100 online now:
AZPaul3, nwr (2 members, 98 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 893,958 Year: 5,070/6,534 Month: 490/794 Week: 116/89 Day: 0/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there a legitimate argument for design?
PlanManStan
Member (Idle past 2955 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 12-12-2013


Message 1 of 638 (713546)
12-13-2013 4:31 PM


I'm somewhat new to EvC (second day, and I've just learned the basics), but I've been involved in this kind of debate for a while now. Is there a legitimate scientific argument to made for ID? Many of the times I have asked people (pastors, friends, relatives, etc.) for any evidence, they usually give me first-hand accounts of divine intervention. Sometimes, they provide me with gaps in other theories. I guess what I am asking here is how good of evidence is first-hand accounts, and how are we to treat gaps in theories, as evidence of another theory or as evidence against the theory at hand? Personally, I don't see them (gaps or first-hand accounts) as scientific because there is no falsifiability. Either there is a gap or not a gap, no debate necessary. First-hand accounts, as well, could easily be lies? What do you think?

Edited by PlanManStan, : Advise from admin.

Edited by PlanManStan, : Admin advice.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 12-13-2013 5:12 PM PlanManStan has taken no action
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2013 10:58 AM PlanManStan has replied
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 12-14-2013 11:15 AM PlanManStan has replied
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-15-2013 12:03 AM PlanManStan has taken no action
 Message 273 by mike the wiz, posted 04-27-2014 6:32 AM PlanManStan has taken no action

  
PlanManStan
Member (Idle past 2955 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 12-12-2013


(1)
Message 5 of 638 (713553)
12-14-2013 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
12-14-2013 10:58 AM


Re: Deism -- the first Intelligent Design Belief
Thanks for the assistance with quoting. I had no idea how people did that! You provide some interesting ideas that I've never heard of before.
Personally I think there are a lot of questions where falsifiability cannot be assured and thus science as we currently know it would not be able to provide an answer.

I don't understand what you mean by "falsifiability cannot be assured". I would say that there is a dichotomy of false and not false. No in between.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2013 10:58 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2013 1:00 PM PlanManStan has taken no action
 Message 10 by AZPaul3, posted 12-14-2013 3:42 PM PlanManStan has replied

  
PlanManStan
Member (Idle past 2955 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 12-12-2013


Message 7 of 638 (713557)
12-14-2013 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by ringo
12-14-2013 11:15 AM


I never said (or didn't mean to) say that there was a similarity between ID and divine intervention. I suppose what people who use this kind of argument are going for is the assumption that it created everything if it can manipulate it and its laws.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 12-14-2013 11:15 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 12-14-2013 11:40 AM PlanManStan has taken no action

  
PlanManStan
Member (Idle past 2955 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 12-12-2013


Message 11 of 638 (713577)
12-14-2013 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by AZPaul3
12-14-2013 3:42 PM


Re: Deism -- the first Intelligent Design Belief
I understand what falsifiability is. Maybe it was just the wording that was used. And yeah, PMS might not be the best nickname out there...

To the test the hypothetical "God Earthquake", we would first have to prove God. It isn't the fact that God made the earthquake that is falsifiable, it is whether or not God exists. If He does, it is easily falsifiable, if He doesn't, it is also falsifiable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by AZPaul3, posted 12-14-2013 3:42 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2013 5:05 PM PlanManStan has replied

  
PlanManStan
Member (Idle past 2955 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 12-12-2013


Message 13 of 638 (713583)
12-14-2013 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
12-14-2013 5:05 PM


Re: Deism -- the first Intelligent Design Belief
To say that I cannot completely disbelieve something just because I haven't looked EVERYWHERE is, well, stupid. Like I said before, I go into something with disbelief and try to find evidence for its belief. My opinons can easily change with new evidence. That is the beauty of science. It is constantly updating as we explore more and more. Currently, I see no evidence for a God or ID, so therefore I disbelive in both of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2013 5:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2013 10:17 PM PlanManStan has replied

  
PlanManStan
Member (Idle past 2955 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 12-12-2013


(1)
Message 15 of 638 (713624)
12-14-2013 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD
12-14-2013 10:17 PM


Re: Deism -- the first Intelligent Design Belief
Thanks for making me feel welcome! I see your concepts of the different types of beliefs, and indeed I've seen something like it (although it used different labels). I also respect your view of the world (positive skepticism), but I guess there's no way of arguing which is better, seeing as they are unscientific psuedo-philosophies about how one goes about life. Indeed, no one is tied to either one.

I wouldn't say that negative skepticism makes one close-minded. I've recently had a change of heart on many issues, the existence of God and gay marriage being two examples. But, as I said above, to each his own.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2013 10:17 PM RAZD has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PlanManStan, posted 12-14-2013 10:38 PM PlanManStan has taken no action

  
PlanManStan
Member (Idle past 2955 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 12-12-2013


Message 16 of 638 (713625)
12-14-2013 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by PlanManStan
12-14-2013 10:35 PM


Re: Deism -- the first Intelligent Design Belief
(I just saw the bottom part of your message, sorry)

It's not that I don't want to admit that I do not know, but that, as I am a "negative skepticist" (I want to refrain from using a term that retricts me, as if that's how I always think, but it is handy here), I look for proof of existence. All non-proved things are false. For example, most babies, although they cannot articulate it, are atheists. That is, they have no belief in a God. Only when the case for God is made to them do they begin to believe. I am a similar way.

I can understand agnosticism (go either way on the matter), and I guess it really is just a pseudo-life philosophy choice. Whatever.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by PlanManStan, posted 12-14-2013 10:35 PM PlanManStan has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2013 10:59 PM PlanManStan has replied

  
PlanManStan
Member (Idle past 2955 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 12-12-2013


Message 18 of 638 (713633)
12-14-2013 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by RAZD
12-14-2013 10:59 PM


Re: Deism -- the first Intelligent Design Belief
Either you are quote-mining or I mispoke on my position. All things non-proved TO ME, I TREAT as unreal. For example, if gravity was not proved to me, I would go about my life without fear of falling, because I would have no reason to fear it. The minute gravity was proven to me, I would be much more careful! [quote]Ardent belief and ardent denial are equally irration[qs/quote]. I wouldn't say so. Ardent denial is definitely irrational, but commitment to cause is not always a negative. Commitment to a cause can bring about wonderful changes (e.g. The French and American revolutions, Spartacus' slave revolt, etc.). While "wonderful" is clearly sujective, what isn't subjective is that those people like Spartacus were very commited to bettering their position, which is a good thing. (I hope to God you can follow that ).

"no they are ignostic if anything, unaware of the issue, and therefore incapable of deciding one way or the other."

I would disagree. It is impossible to say, however, because, you know, they're babies and cannot speak or even eat solid food yet. Like I keep saying, there is not a right or wrong answer. You can be a positive skepticist and I can be a negative skepticist and we will usually come to the same conclusions. For example, we can both agree on the existence of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, light's wave and particle properties, and what wavelength of light the color red is (supposedly -- our reds could be entirely different).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2013 10:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2013 12:06 AM PlanManStan has replied

  
PlanManStan
Member (Idle past 2955 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 12-12-2013


(1)
Message 21 of 638 (713647)
12-15-2013 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
12-15-2013 12:06 AM


Re: Deism -- the first Intelligent Design Belief
The fact that there is no right or wrong answer is not the same as not knowing. There is a big difference. And Spartacus was real and a huge embarrasment to the Roman Empire (or Republic, I'm not sure). And that whole corporate facism thing is both up for debate and not an immediate "descendant" of the revolutionary war.

I guess I must be close-minded in your view, but I disbelieve based on facts contrary to it and believe based on facts beneficient to it. And war can definitely be rational, but only under given, subjective circumstances -- but justied and rational nontheless to the people at hand.

As for "jousting at windmills", it can definitely have an effect on people. Religion gives comfort gives happiness gives more productivity gives better surival. And with my gravity example. Gravity is bad example becaues we know it to be true. I said that I would not believe in gravity because I hadn't seen evidence for it. While this doesn't stop it from happening if it really did exist, it does change my perspective of the world quite a bit.

I think you take "open-mindedness" a bit too far. You can think something is true based on evidence but still have an open mind, like I have demonstrated with examples from my own life. Anything I missed?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2013 12:06 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2013 8:55 AM PlanManStan has replied

  
PlanManStan
Member (Idle past 2955 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 12-12-2013


Message 23 of 638 (713669)
12-15-2013 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD
12-15-2013 8:55 AM


Re: Deism -- the first Intelligent Design Belief
I'm sorry, but what don't you understand about "there is not a right or wronng answer". You are missing the point, and it is my fault. I don't mean there are two differing opinions about, like, the death penalty, but that there is no evidence either way! And if we are blaming the capitalist economic system, it is hardly the USA's fault. You have to go back to Volaire's time for that. And yes, Spartacus never wanted to end slavery, but did want to fight for his own and his fellow slaves' freedom. Initially, he was to go to Gaul and the surrounding regions and disband, but his men convinced him to stay in Italy and plunder.

What information that conflicts with my worldview are you talking about? Your statements seem contradictory. I would argue that the more you know, the easier it is to accept new information, because you would understand the mechanics of it better (statistically speaking, of course). And you can be agnostic about the RNA world theory, I don't care because there really is little evidence for it.

How exactly am I close-minded, anyway? I accept new information, but I do it by first validating it.

And yes, gravity would continue to operate regardless of what happened to me. You are missing the point of the analogy. I go about my life...let's say NOT belieiving in the RNA world because there has not been enough evidence given to me. Now, the RNA world MAY still be true, but I will operate as though it is not, because I have not seen the evidence, if there is any. What's wrong with your views is that you take everything very fickle-y. "Well, it MAY be true, we can never really know". I don't see you questioning gravity! .

Did I miss anything?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2013 8:55 AM RAZD has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2013 11:45 AM PlanManStan has replied

  
PlanManStan
Member (Idle past 2955 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 12-12-2013


Message 25 of 638 (713778)
12-16-2013 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by New Cat's Eye
12-16-2013 11:45 AM


Actually, no, I wouldn't think he'd have a gun. I would be scared (with a liberal definiton of scared, of course) because I would know that someone who looks like him or be in his situation might definitely carry a gun, but I would resist until I was shown the gun. And if I heard a can being kicked, I would know there was something there, either an animal or a person. I would have more evidence that it was a person, however, because it is in a big city, where very few animals are large enough to kick a can except a human. Were I in the country, it might go differently...

Note- it is impossible to know what you would do when faced with a gun or death, this is what i would like myself to do. I hope that makes sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2013 11:45 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2013 3:04 PM PlanManStan has replied

  
PlanManStan
Member (Idle past 2955 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 12-12-2013


Message 27 of 638 (713785)
12-16-2013 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by New Cat's Eye
12-16-2013 3:04 PM


Fear is an evolved trait to help us survive because it allows us to make adrenaline when something startles us, like a predator jumping out from the trees, yes. But there is a fundamental difference. In the big city, I would have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a person nearby, as I detailed in my post before. When faced with a noise in a bush, I have no reason to think it is not a squirrel and really a tiger, but, like you said, I evolved that way. That is not to say I really think there is a tiger, but the experience is still startling. What is your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2013 3:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2013 3:51 PM PlanManStan has replied

  
PlanManStan
Member (Idle past 2955 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 12-12-2013


Message 29 of 638 (713790)
12-16-2013 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by New Cat's Eye
12-16-2013 3:51 PM


Okay, let's say it was a cat. That's irrevalent. I could safely assume it was a person because, statiscally, that is who it would have been. Both you and that deist guy keep focusing on "well, it was actually this or that". That is not the point. The point is how you find your answer, based on reason and math and science or based on "well it could go either way..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2013 3:51 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2013 4:06 PM PlanManStan has replied

  
PlanManStan
Member (Idle past 2955 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 12-12-2013


Message 31 of 638 (713793)
12-16-2013 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by New Cat's Eye
12-16-2013 4:06 PM


You're right we don't. And that's why I don't believe in God, there is no evidence for him. I don't need evidence against his existence. I would say that the details are important. I think what you are saying is that i had no evidence to think that there was a man behind me, but I acted as such. I've already outlined the evidence for why it was a good guess that a man was behind me. What is the problem, again? Yes, it could have been a cat, but that was not as statistically likely. Therefore, I go with the most likely solution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2013 4:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2013 4:22 PM PlanManStan has replied

  
PlanManStan
Member (Idle past 2955 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 12-12-2013


Message 33 of 638 (713796)
12-16-2013 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by New Cat's Eye
12-16-2013 4:22 PM


I never said that a good guess was evidence. I said that, presented with the statistical likelihood of what would be knocking over cans in a city and knowing something about the neighborhood (maybe there are a lot of kids who stay out late, maybe there's a lot of cat-owners, etc.). Acting on little or no evidence...do you mean like our fight-or-flight instinct? There's evidence backing up our decisions there as well! Something large popped out and (at least millions of years ago) we statistically could assume that it would be dangerous. Of course, that isn't what people back then would've actively be thinking. It's similar to how we know where to put our hand to catch a thrown ball, even though we don't calculate the physics of it first.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2013 4:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2013 4:34 PM PlanManStan has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022