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

[Jimmy D]

ID = Intelligent Designer
An intelligent designer need not be a supernatural being.
Or are you now nit-a-picking because I used capital letters and you want to pin me down to a certain philosophical view because that was my personal choice? Hmmmm? Please note that I have been using capital letters in this way in hundreds of discussions with atheists concerning this subject and not one was stumped or took umbrage. Seems peevish. Is that all you got? Wait, I forgot! That's just another way of saying ""Ï cain't see!""

BTW
Maybe you are still identifying me with Behe fellow.

I'm not sure what you're complaining about, from your previous posts you gave the impression you credit God with being the 'designer', do you not?

 

[Radrook]

More mindreading! Again....... wrong.

My problem is that you're trying to force the supernatural into science where it has no place (as it can't be seen, measured or quantifed in any way). Also, it seems that you think that people should listen to you as you declare established scientific theories wrong when it's painfully obvious the only time you have studied these subjects is on creationist propaganda websites.

You are calling quackery science because you either haven't the slightest notion of what the scientific method demands or else don't really care what it demands. I do know and do care. That's the essential difference between us. You also are misrepresenting who I am as being a creationist fanatic. I don't regularly visit those sites and if I did I would test each claim as I do any other claim-objectively. So you are way off in your remarks.

 

[Jimmy D]

So what is the third factor that you are claiming might be involved in the origin of ALL life?
This should prove interesting.

As I said, I don't know, what's wrong with that? However, Some of the less likely options could be time travellers, inter-dimensional beings, a magic egg?

 

[Radrook]

Ah the alien propagandist guy!
I was familiar with that idea before he was born.

 

[Radrook]

As I said, I don't know, what's wrong with that? However, Some of the less likely options could be time travellers, inter-dimensional beings, a magic egg?

You propose a false dichotomy and then when asked for a third alternative declare not to know?
Just as I suspected.
You use the false dichotomy term without knowing its meaning.

BTW
The options you mention are themselves creatures.

 

[SteveB28]

Atheists believe that dead matter spontaneously produced life without an outside, living, intelligent organizing agency..

Wrong. But why should you start being correct now?

Theists do not believe that dead matter spontaneously produced life without a living outside intelligently guiding agency. Instead, theists believe that dead matter was infused with the spark of life via an outside living highly intelligent agency called a creator or God who planned it and brought it about.

In other words, "life came from non-life".......exactly as I said.

Oh dear..........

Genesis 2:7

Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. ...

You see, I can embolden text as well.......

 

[Radrook]

I'm not sure what you're complaining about, from your previous posts you gave the impression you credit God with being the 'designer', do you not?

True, However, for the sake of discussing abiogenesis I don't introduce a religious aspect as the sole alternative.
The main focus is intelligent design vs abiogenesis. It isn't atheism vs theism. That is my complaint.

 

[Radrook]

Wrong. But why should you start being correct now?



In other words, "life came from non-life".......exactly as I said.

Oh dear..........



You see, I can embolden text as well.......

There is a qualitative difference between what you are proposing and what theists believe. Why you are suddenly resorting to obfuscation via the ubiquitous: "I cain't see!" atheist response at this point is totally beyond me.

BTW

Smart chemicals!

 

[DogmaHunter]

The dude compares astrology with ID you claim?

No. What I said was that in order to be able to call ID a scientific model, he had to redefine what a "scientific model" is. And under that "new" definition, astrology also becomes a scientific model.

In other words, he had to redefine it in such a way that pseudo-science also counts as science, in order to be able to call ID 'science'.

Draw your own conclusion. It's fairly obvious.

Now that is crude since thsat isn't part of any model I approve of. Ummm, you are resorting to strawman via projecting this dandy's ideas on me and then demanding that I defend them.

As said... the model of ID that you are talking about here, is the model that behe and his cohorts developed.

You are welcome to distance yourself from this model, in fact I encourage you to do so , but then I have to wonder what you mean by ID....

About argument from incredulity, I think that applies more to atheists than it does to theists. Atheists just can't imagine anything other than a material universe devoid of anything supernatural. Because they can't imagine it they reject it.

Incredulity is not about imagination. It's about understanding.

Actually, our argument offers logical reasons why your idea is bogus. Your reasons for rejection of our concept offers nothing more than "Ï can't see!" Ï won't see!" and ""Nothing will ever force me to see!" Accompanied by," Ï can't hear!"" Ï won't hear!"" and "Nothing's ever going to force me to hear!"

My reply of "i can't see" was merely a response to the (biblical) assertion that it is "obvious to see".

Obviously, it's not obvious.

 

[Jimmy D]

You are calling quackery science because you either haven't the slightest notion of what the scientific method demands or else don't really care what it demands.

Are you mindreading again?

I do know and do care. That's the essential difference between us.

I'd be grateful if you would correct my ignorance then, what does the 'scientific method demand'?

You also are misrepresenting who I am as being a creationist fanatic. I don't regularly visit those sites and if I did I would test each claim as I do any other claim-objectively. So you are way off in your remarks.

I'm glad to hear it and will happily retract my remarks about the Creationist websites.

 

[Radrook]

No. What I said was that in order to be able to call ID a scientific model, he had to redefine what a "scientific model" is. And under that "new" definition, astrology also becomes a scientific model.

In other words, he had to redefine it in such a way that pseudo-science also counts as science, in order to be able to call ID 'science'.

Draw your own conclusion. It's fairly obvious.



As said... the model of ID that you are talking about here, is the model that behe and his cohorts developed.

You are welcome to distance yourself from this model, in fact I encourage you to do so , but then I have to wonder what you mean by ID....



Incredulity is not about imagination. It's about understanding.



My reply of "i can't see" was merely a response to the (biblical) assertion that it is "obvious to see".

Obviously, it's not obvious.

That Behe fellow did that? LOL!
Well, I wouldn't cut my own throat that way but if he felt he had to-to each his own.
The reason I mentioned imagination is because the artyicle which I read about the argument from incredulity kept mentioning the inability to imagine as the reason which makes it fallacious reasoning. I simply applied it to atheistic inability to imagine the supernatural.

Argument fromIncredulity

Explanation

The fallacy lies in the unstated premise. If a state of affairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn't follow that it is false; it may only mean that imagination is limited. Moreover, if no one has yet managed to imagine how a state of affairs is possible, it doesn't follow that no one will ever be able to.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

 

[Jimmy D]

The main focus is intelligent design vs abiogenesis. It isn't atheism vs theism. That is my complaint.

""I cain't see!" atheist response at this point is totally beyond me."

"your atheist scientists should be more honest when invited to appear on documentaries which will represent their opinion to the public."

"As a Christian I accept the Genesis account as the explanation of how life originated."

"Atheists just can't imagine anything other than a material universe devoid of anything supernatural. Because they can't imagine it they reject it."

"Atheists believe that dead matter spontaneously produced life without an outside, living, intelligent organizing agency.."

"Theists do not believe that dead matter spontaneously produced life without a living outside intelligently guiding agency. Instead, theists believe that dead matter was infused with the spark of life via an outside living highly intelligent agency called a creator or God who planned it and brought it about."

 

[DogmaHunter]

That Behe fellow did that? LOL!
Well, I wouldn't cut my own throat that way but if he felt he had to-to each his own.

He was forced to admit it when he was questioned under oath about his ID model.
It's not like he wrote a book and was screaming it from the rooftops.

Perhaps he didn't even realise it until he was confronted with it in court.

The reason I mentioned imagination is because the artyicle which I read about the argument from incredulity kept mentioning the inability to imagine as the reason which makes it fallacious reasoning. I simply applied it to atheistic inability to imagine the supernatural.

The difference is that the "supernatural" can only be imagined, since it cannot be observed or testd.

 

[quatona]

ID = Intelligent Designer
An intelligent designer need not be a supernatural being.

If it´s not "supernatural" (or otherwise defined as exceptional) it must be designed itself, by your own standards.

 

[Jimmy D]

You propose a false dichotomy and then when asked for a third alternative declare not to know?
Just as I suspected.
You use the false dichotomy term without knowing its meaning.

BTW
The options you mention are themselves creatures.

Hey, you proposed two options as the only possible ones when you can't possibly know if there is a third, fourth or fifth.

 

[Speedwell]

It's clearly a false dichotomy:

"Atheists believe that dead matter spontaneously produced life without an outside, living, intelligent organizing agency.."

"Theists do not believe that dead matter spontaneously produced life without a living outside intelligently guiding agency. Instead, theists believe that dead matter was infused with the spark of life via an outside living highly intelligent agency called a creator or God who planned it and brought it about."

As a theist, I don't hold with either of those propositions. What I believe is that there is no "spark of life," no clear line between dead matter and living matter. What we call "life" is an emergent property of a certain kind of biochemical complexity.

 

[bhsmte]

True, However, for the sake of discussing abiogenesis I don't introduce a religious aspect as the sole alternative.
The main focus is intelligent design vs abiogenesis. It isn't atheism vs theism. That is my complaint.

Can you provide the scientific definition of ID?

Also, what is the falsifiable test you use, to determine if ID is present?

 

[keith99]

Wow! An entirely new paradoxical category! Atheists who believe that God, a god, gods, goddesses, deities and other such supernatural beings might have indeed, indefatigably and diligently infused life into matter. Very novel and interesting. Too bad it is self-contradictory and totally nonsensical as an inevitable consequence of sloppy thinking.

Perhaps not. Is someone of a 'God is dead' school an atheist? Where does one fit if they think there were gods of some sort but said gods no longer exist?

 

[keith99]

Can you provide the scientific definition of ID?

Also, what is the falsifiable test you use, to determine if ID is present?

I'd propose looking at the 'design' to see if it in fact is intelligently designed. Considering the large number of Rube Goldberg aspects in living beings I'd consider ID disproved.

 

[Hieronymus]

I'd propose looking at the 'design' to see if it in fact is intelligently designed. Considering the large number of Rube Goldberg aspects in living beings I'd consider ID disproved.

But you have to, don't you?
You have to reduce the high tech nano technological systems incorporated into systems that form bigger systems that are interdependent with other systems to a sloppy job.