'Easy to be an atheist if you agnore science' [moved]

[Speedwell]

Al conclusions are testable. If not testable in a lab via experimentation then they are testable via logic. Um, refutable via logic. um, falsifiable via logic. argumentation showing it to be paradoxical for example. An area which is part and parcel of the scientific method as well. Didn't you know?

Boy, did you ever miss the bus. Never mind, just stop lying about how I determine the presence of design and we'll call it good.

 

[bhsmte]

Not a greater kick than I derive from seeing you squirm while saying you caint see.

Can't see what?

 

[Radrook]

Boy, did you ever miss the bus. Never mind, just stop lying about how I determine the presence of design and we'll call it good.

I never claimed that I know how you determined the presence of design or lack of design because all you ever say is that you can't see..

 

[Radrook]

Can't see what?

What you readily see at a mere glance when you look at Mount Rushmore and can differentiate in a split second between the carvings and the rest of the scenario.

 

[bhsmte]

What you readily see at a mere glance when you look at Mount Rushmore and can differentiate in a split second between the carvings and the rest of the scenario.

??????????????????????

 

[Speedwell]

I never claimed that I know how you determined the presence of design or lack of design because all you ever say is that you can't see..

Post #533, which was addressed to me:

"The reason that it doesn't cut it is because you certainly CAN SEE the difference between the designed and the not designed very clearly in other areas. It is only when the conclusion leads to an ID in nature that you suddenly claim this ridiculous obviously self inflicted bogus inability or blindness. In short, your feigned incomprehension is as transparent as glass."

Emphasis added to bring the pronouns to your attention.

 

[Speedwell]

Design is not directly detectable in an object. If I'm out camping and pick up a rock to pound in my tent stakes, I have "designed" a hammer. After I move on, you would be hard-pressed to find out which rock I had used. Even if I shape the rock for the purpose by banging it against another rock you might have a hard time picking it out--ask any paleontologist who is trying to find stone tools in a rockpile. In fact, what he is looking for are traces of human manufacture from which he may infer human design, and when he finds them he may still not be sure of the purpose of the object, what is was designed for.

Considering the pump of your example, I would infer a human designer not because of its functionality or its complexity but because it was obviously a product of human manufacture. If I could not conclude that the object was of human manufacture, then I could draw no inference one way or another about the existence of a designer.

The suggestion that I would infer the existence of a designer in the case of the man-made pump because of its functionality or complexity and deny it in a natural object of equal functionality or complexity out of ignorance or a desire to deny your pet theory is slanderous and offensive.

 

[Radrook]

Post #533, which was addressed to me:
"The reason that it doesn't cut it is because you certainly CAN SEE the difference between the designed and the not designed very clearly in other areas. It is only when the conclusion leads to an ID in nature that you suddenly claim this ridiculous obviously self inflicted bogus inability or blindness. In short, your feigned incomprehension is as transparent as glass."
Emphasis added to bring the pronouns to your attention.

I only pointed out that you keep claiming to see nothing indicating an ID but don't display that same inability toward similar or identical phenomena. That constitutes the fallacy of inconsistency of policy. Beyond that I said nothing more concerning your modus operandi.

 

[Radrook]

Design is not directly detectable in an object. If I'm out camping and pick up a rock to pound in my tent stakes, I have "designed" a hammer. After I move on, you would be hard-pressed to find out which rock I had used. Even if I shape the rock for the purpose by banging it against another rock you might have a hard time picking it out--ask any paleontologist who is trying to find stone tools in a rockpile. In fact, what he is looking for are traces of human manufacture from which he may infer human design, and when he finds them he may still not be sure of the purpose of the object, what is was designed for.

Considering the pump of your example, I would infer a human designer not because of its functionality or its complexity but because it was obviously a product of human manufacture. If I could not conclude that the object was of human manufacture, then I could draw no inference one way or another about the existence of a designer.

The suggestion that I would infer the existence of a designer in the case of the man-made pump because of its functionality or complexity and deny it in a natural object of equal functionality or complexity out of ignorance or a desire to deny your pet theory is slanderous and offensive.

That doesn't make any sense. You vehemently oppose an ID but claim to believe in an ID? That is paradoxical and nonsensical.
I had assumed you were atheist. But as I check now I see you claim to be Anglican which is a Christian denomination. Since you claim to be Christian then one would expect you to believe in an ID. However, if you vehemently oppose an ID how can you be anything other than atheist? Care to explain?

 

[bhsmte]

I only pointed out that you keep claiming to see nothing indicating an ID but don't display that same inability toward similar or identical phenomena. That constitutes the fallacy of inconsistency of policy. Beyond that I said nothing more concerning your modus operandi.

What identical phenomena were you referring to?

 

[Radrook]

Design is not directly detectable in an object. If I'm out camping and pick up a rock to pound in my tent stakes, I have "designed" a hammer. After I move on, you would be hard-pressed to find out which rock I had used. Even if I shape the rock for the purpose by banging it against another rock you might have a hard time picking it out--ask any paleontologist who is trying to find stone tools in a rockpile. In fact, what he is looking for are traces of human manufacture from which he may infer human design, and when he finds them he may still not be sure of the purpose of the object, what is was designed for.

Considering the pump of your example, I would infer a human designer not because of its functionality or its complexity but because it was obviously a product of human manufacture. If I could not conclude that the object was of human manufacture, then I could draw no inference one way or another about the existence of a designer.

The suggestion that I would infer the existence of a designer in the case of the man-made pump because of its functionality or complexity and deny it in a natural object of equal functionality or complexity out of ignorance or a desire to deny your pet theory is slanderous and offensive.

Wrong! Design is detectable in an object because design is organization toward a purposed. If you find a bow and arrow you put two and two together and conclude ID. Not because the bow and arrow are complex since there is NOTHING complex about them-but because the design indicates organization towards a purpose. The same with a sling and a polished stone stashed snuggly in the leather cup. Such things can be examined for functionality in order to deduce purpose. Such things do not occur by themselves apart from a guiding intellect or mind.

You are claiming non-detectability of mind. However, SETI is base on the detectability of what constitutes a mind. So your claim would come across to them as rather weird. In fact, it would come across to archeologists who are experts at detecting such artifacts as rather uninformed or naïve since their activity depends on the detection of mind in objects which they find among the rubble.

Conclude design because of what? Because we know humans make such things? Wrong again. An abacus when meticulously tested would render up its calculation secrets to any non-human alien species examining it even though the species had never met a human being. In fact, right now the Voyager probe carries with it visual messages concerning the human race which depends on their being deciphered and understood to be the manifestation of a mind-the human mind.

So there goes you familiarity with human activity premise right out the window. Mount Rushmore itself would stand out due to its obvious unnatural symmetry amidst the randomness of the stone surrounding it and not because one knows humans do such things. Again, aliens would have no trouble detecting such things as being artificial products of creative minds.

In short, you arguments are simply elaborated embellishments the I can't see attitude so common among atheists but which you as a Christian claim doesn't contradict your faith? Sorry but that really is humdinger!

BTW
That ID proponents claim that complexity alone proves an ID is a strawman.

 

[Speedwell]

Wrong! Design is detectable in an object because design is organization toward a purposed.

I don't care if you think I am wrong; that's how I do it. In future, direct your accusations of willful inconsistency elsewhere.

 

[Speedwell]

That doesn't make any sense. You vehemently oppose an ID but claim to believe in an ID? That is paradoxical and nonsensical.
I had assumed you were atheist. But as I check now I see you claim to be Anglican which is a Christian denomination. Since you claim to be Christian then one would expect you to believe in an ID. However, if you vehemently oppose an ID how can you be anything other than atheist? Care to explain?

Explain again? If you insist. Of course I believe in an "intelligent designer," God, as author of the universe. Your particular ID proposal, on the other hand, I dismiss as hogwash.

 

[Radrook]

Explain again? If you insist. Of course I believe in an "intelligent designer," God, as author of the universe. Your particular ID proposal, on the other hand, I dismiss as hogwash.

Again? Where did you explain that you believe in an ID? As for dismissing what you consider hogwash as hogwash that is your prerogative. However, posturing as a believer in a creator and vehemently arguing with a fellow believer of a creator because he believes in a creator comes across as rather weird. IMHO.

Such activity supports the atheist viewpoint and scatters people who would otherwise consider the possibility of a creator away from Christ. Jesus even considered such scattering activating as being against him. So I seriously suggest as one Christian to another that you reconsider exactly what it that you are doing.

Luke 11:23 ►
New International Version
"Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

 

[Speedwell]

Again? Where did you explain that you believe in an ID? As for dismissing what you consider hogwash as hogwash that is your prerogative. However, posturing as a believer in a creator and vehemently arguing with a fellow believer of a creator because he believes in a creator comes across as rather weird. IMHO.

Not because you are a believer, but because you propose a test for the presence of design which I consider inadequate. As a fellow believer I have a certain obligation to advise you not to make our faith look foolish.

 

[Radrook]

Not because you are a believer, but because you propose a test for the presence of design which I consider inadequate. As a fellow believer I have a certain obligation to advise you not to make our faith look foolish.

In the process you appear to support abiogenesis since you provide Nothing in support of creation. Sorry but that sounds very unconvincing. Comes across as playing some type of satanically-approved mind game. Not that you intend it to come across that way. But that is the impression I get. Gives me the willies!

 

[Speedwell]

Not because you are a believer, but because you propose a test for the presence of design which I consider inadequate.

In the process you appear to support abiogenesis since you provide Nothing in support of creation. Sorry but that sounds very unconvincing. Comes across as playing some type of satanically-approved mind game. Not that you intend it to come across that way. But that is the impression I get. Gives me the willies!

Of course I do. I believe that all the events in our universe have natural causes (except for those we believe by faith to be miracles) as well as a divine cause. Different metaphysics than you're used to, I guess. My feeling is that abiogenesis (if we were ever to discover how it worked) will turn out to be explainable in terms of natural causes. And--this is the important part, so pay attention--such a finding will not, cannot, deny God's authorship of all of it. I am suspicious of attempts to "prove" God's involvement with science and think they are misguided.

 

[46AND2]

Wrong! Design is detectable in an object because design is organization toward a purposed. If you find a bow and arrow you put two and two together and conclude ID. Not because the bow and arrow are complex since there is NOTHING complex about them-but because the design indicates organization towards a purpose. The same with a sling and a polished stone stashed snuggly in the leather cup. Such things can be examined for functionality in order to deduce purpose. Such things do not occur by themselves apart from a guiding intellect or mind.

You are claiming non-detectability of mind. However, SETI is base on the detectability of what constitutes a mind. So your claim would come across to them as rather weird. In fact, it would come across to archeologists who are experts at detecting such artifacts as rather uninformed or naïve since their activity depends on the detection of mind in objects which they find among the rubble.

Conclude design because of what? Because we know humans make such things? Wrong again. An abacus when meticulously tested would render up its calculation secrets to any non-human alien species examining it even though the species had never met a human being. In fact, right now the Voyager probe carries with it visual messages concerning the human race which depends on their being deciphered and understood to be the manifestation of a mind-the human mind.

So there goes you familiarity with human activity premise right out the window. Mount Rushmore itself would stand out due to its obvious unnatural symmetry amidst the randomness of the stone surrounding it and not because one knows humans do such things. Again, aliens would have no trouble detecting such things as being artificial products of creative minds.

In short, you arguments are simply elaborated embellishments the I can't see attitude so common among atheists but which you as a Christian claim doesn't contradict your faith? Sorry but that really is humdinger!

BTW
That ID proponents claim that complexity alone proves an ID is a strawman.

How do you determine when something is NOT designed? If you claim ID for the universe, then literally everything is designed, and one cannot differentiate between designed and not designed. Indeed, there is no such thing as "not designed." If design explains everything, then design is non-descriptive, and irrelevant.

 

[Speedwell]

How do you determine when something is NOT designed? If you claim ID for the universe, then literally everything is designed, and one cannot differentiate between designed and not designed. Indeed, there is no such thing as "not designed." If design explains everything, then design is non-descriptive, and irrelevant.

It becomes a non-falsifiable proposition--like all decently crafted theological propositions.

 

[Radrook]

How do you determine when something is NOT designed? If you claim ID for the universe, then literally everything is designed, and one cannot differentiate between designed and not designed. Indeed, there is no such thing as "not designed." If design explains everything, then design is non-descriptive, and irrelevant.

If you have a barrel totally full of black marbles, how do you distinguish between the black marbles in the barrel and the white ones in the barrel?

If you have a barrel full of black marbles. How do you distinguish between the unused black marbles and the black marbles used to design things?

The first question is nonsensical since there are no white marbles in the barrel.
The second question is the one that is.

Your question is identical to the first where there is no necessity to differentiate in the way you described.

The second question describes the situation from the theist perspective.

Now imagine that I come along and demand that there must be both black and white marbles in the barrel because I must be able to tell the difference. Of course my demand based on a psychological need to differentiate doesn't change the fact that there are no white marbles in that barrel-does it?


.