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.
The atheist reaction? Definitely 100% predictable.
Tagging things childish doesn't magically make them so. That is wishful thinking.
I've read the exchanges between the followers of ID and those debunking it with great interest and i'll be honest, some amusement. Fundamentally it comes down to this - if you believe in God (in the broadest possible definition of that word), then Intelligent Design is what has happened. God has been the entity who "made" the universe and everything in it, and made it work...... ergo he/ she/ it is the "designer".
If you don't believe in God, there is no "external" designer, it's all naturally occurring, by means which we can't understand. Lack of knowledge in how things work does not result in "God" being required. It results in further research and the knowledge that we may never understand everything. Billions of years of the universe has resulted in where we are now, it's not surprising that in a few hundred years of scientific research we've barely scratched the surface.
Finally, form an atheist viewpoint, if God really is needed to explain it all, where did God come from, who made God?
Sure, a debunking always easily takes place for those who desperately want a debunking to take place and who will accept anything and everything proposed as a debunking.
About the intelligent designer's nature from an atheistic, please note that knowing the exact nature of a creator in order to infer intelligent design is totally unnecessary because it is totally irrelevant. So the premise is seriously flawed. It would be tantamount to arguing that we cannot claim a building was designed because we don't know anything at all about the designer. It makes no difference at all. What does make a difference are the indications of design which justify inferring a designer. So the demand to know who or what the intelligent designer of the universe might be is similarly irrelevant.
About ignorance of how things work being the basis for believing in the designer? Sorry but it is completely the opposite. It is precisely because we know exactly how things work that we have concluded a designer. If indeed we did not know how things work then we would have absolutely no basis for our beliefs. So you see? You have it all backwards.
BTW
I never claimed that the designer must be either a he or a she. That is your idea not mine.
The point is that we have a reasonable chance of discovering how "unintelligent chemicals did it"; and when that happens it will be interesting to see how those who claim 'goddidit' respond....And here we are told that this question is irrelevant, unnecessary. But it is basically the same question as to ask how "unintelligent chemicals did it".
I've read the exchanges between the followers of ID and those debunking it with great interest and i'll be honest, some amusement. Fundamentally it comes down to this - if you believe in God (in the broadest possible definition of that word), then Intelligent Design is what has happened. God has been the entity who "made" the universe and everything in it, and made it work...... ergo he/ she/ it is the "designer".
If you don't believe in God, there is no "external" designer, it's all naturally occurring, by means which we can't understand. Lack of knowledge in how things work does not result in "God" being required. It results in further research and the knowledge that we may never understand everything. Billions of years of the universe has resulted in where we are now, it's not surprising that in a few hundred years of scientific research we've barely scratched the surface.
Finally, form an atheist viewpoint, if God really is needed to explain it all, where did God come from, who made God?
Isn't it a little hypocritical to claim that we don't need to know anything about "the creator" to assert that something has been created, while we must not say that we don't need to know anything about the natural process that cause something in order to know it has been caused by natural process?
About the intelligent designer's nature from an atheistic, please note that knowing the exact nature of a creator in order to infer intelligent design is totally unnecessary because it is totally irrelevant.
It would be tantamount to arguing that we cannot claim a building was designed because we don't know anything at all about the designer.
It is precisely because we know exactly how things work that we have concluded a designer.
Regarding your second paragraph, I simply don't understand your argument. I am saying that everything in the universe appeared by some natural process, and that a designer is not required.
But that still leaves the pretty large gap of where did the designer come from,
You see I'm not saying the god like being doesn't exist, I am just saying I don't believe IT exists, I just can't understand how it would be able to design a universe and make it all happen. Whereas I can understand how natural events over enormous periods of time could result in what we have now, albeit I have colossal gaps in my knowledge.
Finally, form an atheist viewpoint, if God really is needed to explain it all, where did God come from, who made God?
Yeah, that´s why simply postulating a "who" isn´t a scientific explanation.That's not really a valid argument however. Who or what made inflation? Who or what made "dark energy"? Who or what made 'dark matter'?
The fact we can't explain the origin of something really says nothing about it's scientific value.
Yeah, that´s why simply postulating a "who" isn´t a scientific explanation.
Fortunately, we aren´t the ones whose first question is "Whodidit?", so this isn´t our problem.
Two points.That sounds like a bit of a double standard. You seem to be quite comfortable with not fully understanding how the universe might have come
about "naturally", yet your rejection of a conscious "designer" is apparently based upon your lack of understanding.
Then some food for thought: I personally want to be wrong, especially in regards as to my belief that there isn't an afterlife. I am biased in favor of what theists present as evidence for the existence of deities because I hope I'm not right. Yet, even with this bias, I have yet to encounter any actual evidence for the existence of deities, or that any one religion is right, etc. I'd say the feeling is soul-crushing, but I don't believe in souls either. The most positive emotion I ever feel when debunking these arguments is interest, and that's usually only felt for the unique ones.Sure, a debunking always easily takes place for those who desperately want a debunking to take place and who will accept anything and everything proposed as a debunking.
-_- but we do know a lot about the designer of buildings and other structures. Heck, we can even distinguish what species dug a hole by the markings of claws, tools, etc.About the intelligent designer's nature from an atheistic, please note that knowing the exact nature of a creator in order to infer intelligent design is totally unnecessary because it is totally irrelevant. So the premise is seriously flawed. It would be tantamount to arguing that we cannot claim a building was designed because we don't know anything at all about the designer. It makes no difference at all. What does make a difference are the indications of design which justify inferring a designer. So the demand to know who or what the intelligent designer of the universe might be is similarly irrelevant.
If what you said were true for all believers in an intelligent designer, deity or otherwise, theism would be a recent thing in human history. It's not. It might be true for you personally.About ignorance of how things work being the basis for believing in the designer? Sorry but it is completely the opposite. It is precisely because we know exactly how things work that we have concluded a designer. If indeed we did not know how things work then we would have absolutely no basis for our beliefs. So you see? You have it all backwards.
Two points.
First, I'd rather say that our understanding, not the lack of it, is what makes us reject a conscious "natural" designer.
Under the knows laws - and hypotheses, it would include your beloved plasma ideas! - of nature, a pan- or panentheistic "God" cannot function.
Second, considering that such a "natural" conscious being, regardless of it's scale or nature would be the epitome of "unintelligent chemicals did it", I find it extremly amusing that Radrook tagged this post: "winner".
One would have thought that he would be completely opposed to such an idea... but that again is just another sign that "ID" isn't science: if you don't have to have any ideas about "the creator", the sole mention of this phrase must make you lend your support.
Then some food for thought: I personally want to be wrong, especially in regards as to my belief that there isn't an afterlife. I am biased in favor of what theists present as evidence for the existence of deities because I hope I'm not right. Yet, even with this bias, I have yet to encounter any actual evidence for the existence of deities, or that any one religion is right, etc. I'd say the feeling is soul-crushing, but I don't believe in souls either. The most positive emotion I ever feel when debunking these arguments is interest, and that's usually only felt for the unique ones.
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?