for atheists

[pitabread]

we know that gears are the product of design.

Not in the case of biological organisms we don't.

 

[renniks]

"arguments" for god are not "evidence" for god. All the most logically sound argument does is propose a logical possibility for what ever you're arguing. It does not bring it into existence nor does it demonstrate its existence.

Neither does Darwinism demonstrate evolution is reality.

 

[renniks]

just watched my cat stalk a bird. She only moved towards it when it was not looking in her direction. So the cat was making decisions which is an observation of reality contradicting Mr Aquinas' assertion.

No, that affirms the argument. Why would you think otherwise?

 

[renniks]

You keep posting assertions as if they are evidence- "we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy,".

Why?

Evidence is based on observation...if we observe obvious design, why would you try to claim that is not evidence?

 

[Larniavc]

No, that affirms the argument. Why would you think otherwise?

In what way does my cat making a decision on how best to stalk bird support Mr Aquinas' arguement?

 

[pitabread]

In other words:

1. The material universe resembles the intelligent productions of human beings in that it exhibits design.
2. The design in any human artifact is the effect of having been made by an intelligent being.
3. Like effects have like causes.
4. Therefore, the design in the material universe is the effect of having been made by an intelligent creator.

This argument is a prime example of the False Equivalence fallacy. That renders it a poor argument.

The other big issue is that it completely ignores just how we detect human-made designs. We do so via pre-existing knowledge of how human-made objects are created and pattern recognition in comparing human-made versus natural objects.

We can't apply the same criteria to the entire universe as a whole, since we lack a point-of-comparison and have no pre-existing knowledge of how the universe was created by an intelligent being.

If anything, trying to claim design of the universe on the same basis as human made objects seems to be an example of apophenia / pareidolia.

 

[Larniavc]

Evidence is based on observation...if we observe obvious design, why would you try to claim that is not evidence?

How do you decide what is designed? What are the criteria?

 

[renniks]

In what way does my cat making a decision on how best to stalk bird support Mr Aquinas' arguement?

Aquinas wasn't talking about animals, first off.
But a capacity for intelligence suggests an intelligent Creator. If I create a computer, it can't do math problems without first being programmed to perform that function. Intelligent actions can't evolve from chaos, that's something from nothing.

 

[Larniavc]

Aquinas wasn't talking about animals, first off.

So what exactly was he referring to?

 

[renniks]

How do you decide what is designed? What are the criteria?

Even the simplest cells bristle with high-tech machinery. On the outside, their surfaces are studded with sensors, gates, pumps and identification markers. Some bacteria even sport rotary outboard motors that they use to navigate their environment.

Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA’s structure and an outspoken critic of religion, has nonetheless remarked, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.”

Isn't that hilarious? He has to remind himself to ignore the obvious. An atheistic biologist must warn his colleagues against seeing design in nature. Wow.

 

[Larniavc]

But a capacity for intelligence suggests an intelligent Creator. If I create a computer, it can't do math problems without first being programmed to perform that function. Intelligent actions can't evolve from chaos, that's something from nothing.

That's an interesting assertion. What evidence do you have to support it?

 

[pitabread]

But a capacity for intelligence suggests an intelligent Creator. If I create a computer, it can't do math problems without first being programmed to perform that function. Intelligent actions can't evolve from chaos, that's something from nothing.

Read up on the concept of Emergent Properties: Emergence - Wikipedia

 

[Larniavc]

Even the simplest cells bristle with high-tech machinery. On the outside, their surfaces are studded with sensors, gates, pumps and identification markers. Some bacteria even sport rotary outboard motors that they use to navigate their environment.

Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA’s structure and an outspoken critic of religion, has nonetheless remarked, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.”

Isn't that hilarious? He has to remind himself to ignore the obvious. An atheistic biologist must warn his colleagues against seeing design in nature. Wow.

So what are the criteria? I don't see how Dr Crick's contradiction of your assertion supports your position.

 

[renniks]

Read up on the concept of Emergent Properties: Emergence - Wikipedia

Lol, circular reasoning with a little hog wash added.

 

[renniks]

So what are the criteria? I don't see how Dr Crick's contradiction of your assertion supports your position.

Find me an outboard motor that designed itself and then we can talk about it.

 

[Larniavc]

Find me an outboard motor that designed itself and then we can talk about it.

What does an outboard motor have to do with biology? You do know that a mechanical device is not alive, don't you?

 

[pitabread]

Lol, circular reasoning with a little hog wash added.

Your hand-waving dismissal is noted.

 

[Jimmy D]

Find me an outboard motor that designed itself and then we can talk about it.

I don’t believe primordial life was designed by the Evinrude Outboard Co, but whatever floats your boat.

 

[pitabread]

I don’t believe primordial life was designed by the Evinrude Outboard Co, but whatever floats your boat.

That is what always amazes me about these arguments. The moment you get into the how these things that are claimed to be designed by intelligence are made, the argument falls apart.

 

[Freodin]

The reason was I was wondering what the reaction would be IF ( not saying this will happen, but if the virus "fell off the map" I am not talking about slowly getting under control and leaving that way I am talking about a very sudden drop in cases. ( Particularly if no second wave shows up. Not saying it will happen by any means.

Wouldn't you think this is a sort of confirmation bias?

Something happens. Something that you cannot explain - for whatever reason - and that you wouldn't have thought could happen - for whatever reason.
So, you conclude... it happened because of the reason I prefer.

You wouldn't waste a single thought on the possibility that the virus suddenly disappearing was causes by Aesculapius, would you? Or because of a glitch in the space-time-continuum?
Both these options have the same conection to your scenario than "It was YHWH!"

So, yes, such an event would raise an eyebrow, but it would not lead to the conclusion you want.

That's why I still prefer my variant... because it does make such a casual connection. Not an undenialble one, but a much stronger one than this: "What if X happened... not that I am saying it would."