Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
good point.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.
How can you even reconcile "not physical evidence" and "logical" in the same sentence?good point.
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.Likewise, ID is based on logical reasoning, which provides the evidence for it. It's not physical, but logical evidence.
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.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.
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?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 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.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.
Teddy KGB explained your fallacy in reasoning.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.
what's circular about ID?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.
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.Shinbit, according to you, what data does ID use for it's logical reasoning?
and it is.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"...
a little late, since I already agreed with wiccan child that the Big Bang is a theory with some evidence to support it.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.
see the response in this post, two quotes up.Now could you please answer what 'logical' data Intelligent Design uses?
- Ectezus
the fallacy in your post: you misquoted me, then attacked me based on what I didn't say.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.
$3000 a semester easily solves these things...
ID is not scientific
ID uses physical things from nature and compares them to what we know to have been designed, as evidence.
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.
A good free Google search doesn't hurt either.
The problem with either one is having an open mind to learn.
Well, quantum mechanics certainly gives the appearance of pure randomness, but the wave function dynamics are purely deterministic.
you look at a monstrously complex universe, and think "pure luck"? lolz back at ya.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
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.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?
how is this fallacious? you're now just making blanket statements, without supporting your position.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
WOW. yes, I've been doing that since the first page of this thread.Are you admitting that ID should only be taught in philosophy class and not in science?
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.
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".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?