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

[gaara4158]

soap bubbles was brought up by moonlancer as an argument against ID, by trying to say that ID had nothing to do with it, which fails because ID had everything to do with the creation of the soap the bubble came from, making his point moot. Likewise, as far as the shape of the bubbles, the very laws the cause the shape of the bubbles, are also a result of ID.

That was the point.

Ok, half of your post is completely incomprehensible, and the other half is you bleating that everything is intelligently designed.

Please show me evidence that the laws that cause the shape of bubbles and the diversification of life are a result of ID.

 

[shinbits]

And there goes the argument from complexity, as well. If you're willing to admit that theres a point where causation ends, why do you say that point is a designer and not matter?

whoa now. you're putting words in my mouth.

the designer may or may not have existed first. ID doesn't state that the Designer "must" have existed before anything else. Simply that the Designer is responsible for the complexity and form of the universe.

 

[gaara4158]

whoa now. you're putting words in my mouth.

the designer may or may not have existed first. ID doesn't state that the Designer "must" have existed before anything else. Simply that the Designer is responsible for the complexity and form of the universe.

Order of existence is not the issue here, it's causation. You argue that the existence of the universe must have been caused, but that God doesn't need a cause, right?

 

[shinbits]

Order of existence is not the issue here, it's causation. You argue that the existence of the universe must have been caused, but that God doesn't need a cause, right?

No. I simply argue that the universe was designed. Someone brought up the old "oh yeah, then where did the Designer come from" bit, to which I gave one likely possibility, should a Designer exist. Whether or not God was caused is rather irrelevant to me.

 

[sbvera13]

whoa now. you're putting words in my mouth.

the designer may or may not have existed first. ID doesn't state that the Designer "must" have existed before anything else. Simply that the Designer is responsible for the complexity and form of the universe.

On what basis do you make the statement that there must be a designer?

That is the problem I was pointing out. You state that the universe is so complex it requires a special designer. Then you stop using this logic on the designer itself. This is a case of special exemption.

 

[Ectezus]

Shinbit since you insist on repeating your lies I'll break it down for you:

My very first sentence to you that had the word soap in it:

Shinbits, are you seriously discussing whether your god created soap or not?

Your very first reaction to this this question was:

roflz. I'm answering your question to the example YOU brought up.

YOU brought up soap. I responded to it. You responded to my response, and I answered back. That's how we got here.

I did not brought up soap before you flipped out with that reply. I couldn't even have responded to your first responce as you were typing the very message that already claimed I did it! Oh the ironic paradox of it all...
This is just beyond hilarious. Go look it up and read it again. The proof is on page 4 for crying out loud.

Stop twisting yourself into a corner by saying I lied.

 

[shinbits]

Ok, half of your post is completely incomprehensible

someone used the existence of soap bubbles to argue against ID. This is not a good argument since the soap itself was created. what's "incomprehensible" about that?

and the other half is you bleating that everything is intelligently designed.

Please show me evidence that the laws that cause the shape of bubbles and the diversification of life are a result of ID.

Like I said on the first page of this thread: that's impossible, because there's no objective parameter for "design" or "complexity". ID is not scientific, it's philosophical. It only uses arguments from science, it isn't scientific itself.

 

[MoonLancer]

...

 

[MoonLancer]

just like with soap, bubbles made from other liquids such as water, are formed from something which was intelligently designed.

evidence please. do you know the difference between evidence and assertions?

 

[gaara4158]

No. I simply argue that the universe was designed. Someone brought up the old "oh yeah, then where did the Designer come from" bit, to which I gave one likely possibility, should a Designer exist. Whether or not God was caused is rather irrelevant to me.

Oh, ok. A few questions for you, then:

1. By "design" do you mean that the universe was necessarily created by a designer, or that it already existed and was simply assembled?

2. Why must it have been "designed" and not have simply formed?

3. What is the point of ID without belief in any specific god? Seems like a "whatever floats your boat" answer to me, as it has no scientific or religious implications. It's a shot in the dark.

 

[shinbits]

On what basis do you make the statement that there must be a designer?

That is the problem I was pointing out. You state that the universe is so complex it requires a special designer. Then you stop using this logic on the designer itself. This is a case of special exemption.

If a designer exists, it is most likely that the designer always existed. I was just pointing out that other possibilities may exist as to where the designer came from.

But again, there's no "special case of exemption", since science agrees that matter can niether be created nor destroyed. This would be a " special exemption" being made. Since this is the case with matter, there's no reason why this can't hold true for the Designer.

 

[sbvera13]

ID is not scientific, it's philosophical. It only uses arguments from science, it isn't scientific itself.

Hey, he said something true. 2 out of 3 isn't bad.

Gonna be nitpicky here, but it doesn't use any arguments from science. It uses arguments from logic. IE, it says because of this -> then that. Science is far more meticulous that that.

 

[gaara4158]

someone used the existence of soap bubbles to argue against ID. This is not a good argument since the soap itself was created. what's "incomprehensible" about that?

It was your comma splices, more than anything else.
Anyway, it wasn't their existence he was using, it was their nature. You proceeded to argue about its existence, which caused the confusion and escalated the argument as you both genuinely thought the other to be evasive.

Like I said on the first page of this thread: that's impossible, because there's no objective parameter for "design" or "complexity". ID is not scientific, it's philosophical. It only uses arguments from science, it isn't scientific itself.

Then how is it even defensible? How is it anything more than an assertion, an argument from incredulity?

 

[sbvera13]

But again, there's no "special case of exemption", since science agrees that matter can niether be created nor destroyed. This would be a " special exemption" being made. Since this is the case with matter, there's no reason why this can't hold true for the Designer.

It is because you don't use it equally. If you apply it to the universe, you must apply it to the designer. If you don't apply it to the universe, you don't apply it to the designer. The problem is you don't stop at the first, simplest case. You apply the complexity argument to the universe to reach a designer. THEN you stop. Why?

 

[shinbits]

Shinbit since you insist on repeating your lies I'll break it down for you:

My very first sentence to you that had the word soap in it:

I see the problem. It started when you had no real point to make, and were arguing just to argue:

Shinbits, are you seriously discussing whether your god created soap or not?

you asked this even though you demonstrated that you knew it wasn't me who brought this up:

Wow....
I did not bring up any soap or any bubbles lol. Go back to page 1 and look it up as it was MoonLancer who asked you that question. Stop being a liar Shinbits.

Why you would ask if I'm arguing a point, when you clearly knew it was one of your buddies arguing the same point is beyond me. I made a mistake, which started with you trying skirt around your failing logic.


btw, way to "be done" with me.

 

[shinbits]

Hey, he said something true. 2 out of 3 isn't bad.

Gonna be nitpicky here, but it doesn't use any arguments from science. It uses arguments from logic. IE, it says because of this -> then that. Science is far more meticulous that that.

saying "arguments from science" was incorrect. I meant to say examples from. And yes, philosophy uses arguments from logic. And yes also, science is for more meticulous than that, which is why it isn't science. It's philosophy.

 

[Ectezus]

I made a mistake

That's all I wanted to hear.
I except your apology, even though it's a horrible one.

- Ectezus

 

[shinbits]

It was your comma splices, more than anything else.
Anyway, it wasn't their existence he was using, it was their nature. You proceeded to argue about its existence, which caused the confusion and escalated the argument as you both genuinely thought the other to be evasive.

no, he was more concerned about thier existence:

are soap bubbles intelligently designed?

oh, please elaborate why it could not have arisen from chance.

there was no confusion, he wanted an answer as to why thier existence couldn't have been due to random chance---Which was because the bubbles came from an designed thing, ultimately making them a result of ID.

Then how is it even defensible? How is it anything more than an assertion, an argument from incredulity?

ID uses teleological arguments, used by respected philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato. ID is quite valid, not when dressed up as science, but properly regarded as philosophy.

 

[shinbits]

It is because you don't use it equally. If you apply it to the universe, you must apply it to the designer. If you don't apply it to the universe, you don't apply it to the designer. The problem is you don't stop at the first, simplest case. You apply the complexity argument to the universe to reach a designer. THEN you stop. Why?

I don't follow what you mean. When you say I "stop", do you mean that I stop at the designer? If so, it's because ID ultimately doesn't adress the Designer(s) Him/Her/Its/Themselves. ID's goal is not to identify the nature of the Designer, but to show design in nature.

But if I'm wrong about what you're trying to say, let me know.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

...
...

1) Name your ONE main example that according to you could absolutely not have evolved over time.
2) State your reasons why you think this couldn't have evolved.

....
- Ectezus

1) the eye
2) god did it...

1) sexual reproduction
2) God did it...

1) george bush...
2) the devil did it...