Irreducible Complexity - If you believe this, what's your main example?

[shinbits]

No, because it's not. As Ectezus said, arguments not based on evidence are pure speculation. Since the Big Bang is based on evidence, it isn't speculation: it's a theory.

Keep up.

good point.

Likewise, ID is based on logical reasoning, which provides the evidence for it. It's not physical, but logical evidence.

 

[Ectezus]

good point.

Likewise, ID is based on logical reasoning, which provides the evidence for it. It's not physical, but logical evidence.

Haha, Logical reasoning provides the evidence for it? I think you're confused with CIRCULAR reasoning my friend...
Circular reasoning is often used with goddidit arguments so I guess we can't blame you for mistaking the two.

Shinbit, according to you, what data does ID use for it's logical reasoning?

We've already established that irreducible complexity does not exist in our current KNOWN data. It might be in the unknown but since we haven't discovered that yet it would be ridiculous to use it as evidence. So what logic are you talking about? I seriously hope your main argument is better than "It MIGHT be true"...


Since you brought up the big bang theory as an equal to ID I feel obliged to answer my own question and name some of the data that the big bang theory uses:

Like how everywhere we listen in the universe we have the same background noise/radiation. AND the fact that we see a red shift in light which means objects are moving away from us. In other words: the universe is expanding.

Expanding universe means it will be bigger tomorrow, but what about yesterday and the day before that? It keeps getting smaller and smaller till at a point you have the big bang. The common background radiation from a single explosion is just a cherry on top.
Now the theory might be wrong, sure. But so far it has a good explanation for the FACTS we discovered.

Now could you please answer what 'logical' data Intelligent Design uses?

- Ectezus

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

good point.

Likewise, ID is based on logical reasoning, which provides the evidence for it. It's not physical, but logical evidence.

How can you even reconcile "not physical evidence" and "logical" in the same sentence?

ID is based on absolutely NOTHING. Nada. Zilch. Just because one may not understand something, does not allow you to make the goddidit claim. That is a HUGE jump in reason that just can't be glossed over in hopes that the reader ignore it.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Likewise, ID is based on logical reasoning, which provides the evidence for it. It's not physical, but logical evidence.

There is no such thing as "logical evidence." A logical argument is either deductive or inductive. Valid conclusions of the former type are analytically true; they are true for all included instances and for all time. Inductive conclusions are probabilistic; their premises contain one or more possibly true statements, and are very much subject to empirical analysis.

No matter how much you seem to want ID to be purely philosophical, it will inexorably have to answer empirical questions.

 

[shinbits]

There is no such thing as "logical evidence." A logical argument is either deductive or inductive. Valid conclusions of the former type are analytically true; they are true for all included instances and for all time. Inductive conclusions are probabilistic; their premises contain one or more possibly true statements, and are very much subject to empirical analysis.

No matter how much you seem to want ID to be purely philosophical, it will inexorably have to answer empirical questions.

the nature of philosophy is such, that the questions it answers are not questions of nature. otherwise it wouldn't be philosophy, it would be science. the philosophical arguments for the existence of God by Descartes, for example, are not things for which empirical evidence can be provided, save for "I think therefore I am". But his meditions on an "evil" or "good" God, cannot use empirical evidence.

ID uses the same teleological arguments, which are by nature, not scientific. so there would, for the most part, not be any reason for ID to answer empirical questions.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

the nature of philosophy is such, that the questions it answers are not questions of nature. otherwise it wouldn't be philosophy, it would be science. the philosophical arguments for the existence of God by Descartes, for example, are not things for which empirical evidence can be provided, save for "I think therefore I am". But his meditions on an "evil" or "good" God, cannot use empirical evidence.

Then you agree that ID should be taught as a philosophical discipline left to its own merits, and not along side real science in the classroom?

 

[shinbits]

How can you even reconcile "not physical evidence" and "logical" in the same sentence?

ID is based on absolutely NOTHING. Nada. Zilch. Just because one may not understand something, does not allow you to make the goddidit claim. That is a HUGE jump in reason that just can't be glossed over in hopes that the reader ignore it.

ID uses physical things from nature and compares them to what we know to have been designed, as evidence. So it is based on something. But you guys are asking for things such as "data", and calculations. That's a type of physical evidence that ID and philosophy cannot provide.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

ID uses physical things from nature and compares them to what we know to have been designed, as evidence. So it is based on something. But you guys are asking for things such as "data", and calculations. That's a type of physical evidence that ID and philosophy cannot provide.

Teddy KGB explained your fallacy in reasoning.

You fail to understand that you cannot equate: A)things from nature + B)what we know to have been designed = evidence that goddidit.

 

[shinbits]

Haha, Logical reasoning provides the evidence for it? I think you're confused with CIRCULAR reasoning my friend...
Circular reasoning is often used with goddidit arguments so I guess we can't blame you for mistaking the two.

what's circular about ID?

Shinbit, according to you, what data does ID use for it's logical reasoning?

we established this one the very first page of this thread. ID is not scientific, that it would use "data". there'd be no reason for philosophy if that was the case, it would just be science. philosophy deals with what we can't know through science, such as issues of morality, the existence of God, ect.

We've already established that irreducible complexity does not exist in our current KNOWN data. It might be in the unknown but since we haven't discovered that yet it would be ridiculous to use it as evidence. So what logic are you talking about? I seriously hope your main argument is better than "It MIGHT be true"...

and it is.

Since you brought up the big bang theory as an equal to ID I feel obliged to answer my own question and name some of the data that the big bang theory uses:

Like how everywhere we listen in the universe we have the same background noise/radiation. AND the fact that we see a red shift in light which means objects are moving away from us. In other words: the universe is expanding.

Expanding universe means it will be bigger tomorrow, but what about yesterday and the day before that? It keeps getting smaller and smaller till at a point you have the big bang. The common background radiation from a single explosion is just a cherry on top.
Now the theory might be wrong, sure. But so far it has a good explanation for the FACTS we discovered.

a little late, since I already agreed with wiccan child that the Big Bang is a theory with some evidence to support it.

Now could you please answer what 'logical' data Intelligent Design uses?

- Ectezus

see the response in this post, two quotes up.

 

[shinbits]

Teddy KGB explained your fallacy in reasoning.

You fail to understand that you cannot equate: A)things from nature + B)what we know to have been designed = evidence that goddidit.

the fallacy in your post: you misquoted me, then attacked me based on what I didn't say.

I didn't say "equate". I said COMPARE. There's a huge diffence between those two terms.

 

[pgp_protector]

$3000 a semester easily solves these things...

A good free Google search doesn't hurt either.

The problem with either one is having an open mind to learn.

 

[Ectezus]

ID is not scientific

I'm glad you agree.

ID uses physical things from nature and compares them to what we know to have been designed, as evidence.

So you're comparing something from nature with something we humans created with IMMATERIAL objects and come up with the same conclusion?
THIS is your logical reasoning?.... lol

Shinbits, what would your main example be of "what we know for sure has been designed" that makes a good argument in favor of ID or Irreducible Complexity?

I await your reply.


- Ectezus

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

ID uses physical things from nature and compares them to what we know to have been designed, as evidence. So it is based on something. But you guys are asking for things such as "data", and calculations. That's a type of physical evidence that ID and philosophy cannot provide.

Just re-read your post and I don't think I misquoted you. You stated "physical things from nature and" (+) "compares them to what we know to be designed as" (=) "evidence." This make some huge assumptions and is fallacious, as Teddy KGB already pointed out.

Are you admitting that ID should only be taught in philosophy class and not in science?

 

[mpok1519]

A good free Google search doesn't hurt either.

The problem with either one is having an open mind to learn.

But if you're down $3000, you have little choice other than to believe it. Cuz if you dont, well, thats money down the drain.

 

[Nathan45]

Well, quantum mechanics certainly gives the appearance of pure randomness, but the wave function dynamics are purely deterministic.

Maybe I'm confused, but I thought that a wave function was just an expression of the probability of finding a particle at any particular point.

 

[shinbits]

So you're comparing something from nature with something we humans created with IMMATERIAL objects and come up with the same conclusion?
THIS is your logical reasoning?.... lol

you look at a monstrously complex universe, and think "pure luck"? lolz back at ya.

besides, you've oversimplified ID to the point of being flat out wrong.

Shinbits, what would your main example be of "what we know for sure has been designed" that makes a good argument in favor of ID or Irreducible Complexity?

it's not that alone. it would be first identifying things in nature that can be defined as systems, such as the water cycle. then noting how these systems are intricate, and interlocking. we can note the roll and purpose of the individual parts of a system. after examining all these factors together, we can start to make a case for ID. A comparison between said natural system can be made to something we know for sure has been designed, like by humans, for example.

there's a lot it. it's far more than "it's complex, so mydietydidit".

 

[shinbits]

Just re-read your post and I don't think I misquoted you. You stated "physical things from nature and" (+) "compares them to what we know to be designed as" (=) "evidence." This make some huge assumptions and is fallacious

how is this fallacious? you're now just making blanket statements, without supporting your position.

Are you admitting that ID should only be taught in philosophy class and not in science?

WOW. yes, I've been doing that since the first page of this thread.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

first of all, it should be stated that ID and evolution do not contradict each other, except when fundamentalist propropents of ID insist that it does.


ID, free of any sort religious agenda, can flow with evolution.


that said, there are many examples of irreducible complexity. the galaxy and it's billions of stars, along with the solar system, the planets and thier many satalites, asteroids and comets, which all orbit and rotate in cyclical and predictable fashion, could not have arisen by mere chance.

I'm sorry my mistake. I didn't realize your definition of ID is different from the current popular ID definition ("creationism in a cheap tuxedo"). Becuase, as I understand it, ID is most definitely incompatable and anathema to evolution.

Heretofore I shall refer to your version of ID as ID(1.0), and respectfully ask that you do as well so as not to confuse the issue.

 

[Nathan45]

it's not that alone. it would be first identifying things in nature that can be defined as systems, such as the water cycle. then noting how these systems are intricate, and interlocking. we can note the roll and purpose of the individual parts of a system. after examining all these factors together, we can start to make a case for ID. A comparison between said natural system can be made to something we know for sure has been designed, like by humans, for example.

there's a lot it. it's far more than "it's complex, so mydietydidit".

Philosophically, this runs into problems with what's called the anthropic principle, which essentially states "Anything necessary for the existence of intelligent life must exist, or else we wouldn't be here to talk about it"

If a water cycle is necessary for the existence of complex life, then complex life would only arise on a planet with a water cycle. Therefore, it should be no surprise that we live on a planet with a water cycle, if we didn't we'd never have been born. This situation might be compared to a puddle of water in a hole commenting on how lucky it was to find a hole the exact shape of the puddle.

Due to the anthropic principle, the probability of anything occurring that can be shown to be necessary for complex life is truly irrelevant. The question becomes, is there anything that we know about a water cycle that is actually impossible and not simply improbable from a standpoint of meteorology.

in my estimation, you have three options:

Either assert A) A water cycle requires additional* supernatural effects to either sustain itself come into existence

( *by "additional" i mean, in addition to any supernatural effects, if any, that were already necessary to cause the big bang, the creation of stars, planets, etc or to create the natural laws of the universe. )

To assert A and be taken seriously you should point out what part of the water cycle is not naturally possible.

or assert B) A water cycle is so unlikely and fortituous it must have been designed

in which case i would point to the billions and billions of other stars and billions and billions of galaxies that we can see, in the sky... and those are just the ones we can see, for all we know the universe expands infinitely in all directions. Then i'll say, as i already said, if something so fortuitous as intelligent life did not arise on earth, lucky or not, we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

or you could assert C) The physical laws of the universe were designed such that a water cycle, intelligent life, etc, was the inevitable result.
In which case you'd basically be a Deist and you'd have no problem at all with evolution.

 

[Ectezus]

ID has been shown to be religious in nature in the Dover trial.
Teaching religion in schools isn't possible is it? Or would that be possible in philosophy class?