The stumbling block for atheists.

[Radrook]

I thought we were supposed to pretend that the ID you were talking about wasn't a religious idea.

I shift from the ID to the biblical God if someone, such as you for example, mentions the biblical God or if the discussion has suddenly shifted to the biblical God and is no longer strictly an ID issue.

BTW
The only ones pretending are the ones who constantly claim inability to understand clear English and who feign to have suffered some type of sudden frontal lobe lobotomy each time an intelligent designer is mentioned..

 

[Strathos]

Atheists don't exist?

They don't claim what you say they do, as far as I have seen.

 

[Michael]

I'm afraid I'm not knowledgeable enough on dark matter to get what you're saying....

If you're saying miracles are detected in the same manner as dark matter....then how is dark matter detected?

That question was in fact the question that I wanted you to ask yourself.

The fact that something isn't *directly* detectable doesn't mean that it's *effects* cannot be directly detectable.

I don't actually hold belief in "dark" stuff myself, but "scientists" seem to do so, even *without* any ability to directly detect it.

Even if God wasn't directly detectable, it wouldn't preclude the *effects* of God from being detectable.

 

[Michael]

fits all the necessary prerequisites fot the miraculous

Funny how it's only miraculous when they say it's miraculous. The Big Bang which meets all the prerequisites for the miraculous isn't even called miraculous. Instead the words "unimaginable" "spectacular" "mind boggling" are cunningly preferred in order to avoid giving the "wrong" impression.

Atheists routinely put their "faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab). In fact, pretty much anything goes with respect to making claims about the unseen (in the lab), just a long at the topic doesn't involved "God" or "soul".

 

[Speedwell]

Even if God wasn't directly detectable, it wouldn't preclude the *effects* of God from being detectable.

But the existence of God would not require the *effects* be detectable. In general, I am suspicious of attempts to prove the existence of God with science. In the first place, I adhere to a theology in which these *effects* will in principle not be detectable by mundane science, though I will not be dogmatic on the point. Further, I observe that in all such cases of which I am aware, such attempts generally have the political motive of imposing the theology of a particular sect on public policy. ID is a good example of this. It was conceived of as a way of imposing theism on atheists, the first step in introducing the theocratic state its authors dreamt of.

 

[Michael]

But the existence of God would not require the *effects* be detectable.

True. Pantheism is such an example. Any "personal" definition of God, and therefore any "Christian" definition of God would predict the existence of "effects" of God on human beings on Earth, if only in the form of the Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

In general, I am suspicious of attempts to prove the existence of God with science.

Ya, you and most atheists as well.

In the first place, I adhere to a theology in which these *effects* will in principle not be detectable by mundane science, though I will not be dogmatic on the point.

As long as you're not being dogmatic on that point, you have to allow for the possibility of God to be "detectable" by "science' if only based on God's "effect' on living beings. In a Panentheistic definition of God, God would be entirely "detectable" in every conceivable empirical way. It really depends on what exactly God "is".

Further, I observe that in all such cases of which I am aware, such attempts generally have the political motive of imposing the theology of a particular sect on public policy. ID is a good example of this. It was conceived of as a way of imposing theism on atheists, the first step in introducing the theocratic state its authors dreamt of.

I firmly agree that there needs to be a separation of church and state, and that YEC is an excellent example of such a concept tying to be pushed upon the state from the halls of religion.

On the other hand, I don't think it's possible to rule out all concepts of "intelligent design", particularly such theories which do *not* conflict with the estimated age of the Earth or evolutionary theory.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That question was in fact the question that I wanted you to ask yourself.

The fact that something isn't *directly* detectable doesn't mean that it's *effects* cannot be directly detectable.

I don't actually hold belief in "dark" stuff myself, but "scientists" seem to do so, even *without* any ability to directly detect it.

Even if God wasn't directly detectable, it wouldn't preclude the *effects* of God from being detectable.

That's a fair point...

You understand the problems it causes though, right? Without any sort of confirmation that a god exists...how would you know what it's effects are?

Of course, maybe you've already got an answer for that problem and you can provide an example of an "effect" of god and how you can know it's an effect of god?

 

[Ana the Ist]

What was funny about that post? I meant it as a serious question...

 

[Dave RP]

Atheists routinely put their "faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab). In fact, pretty much anything goes with respect to making claims about the unseen (in the lab), just a long at the topic doesn't involved "God" or "soul".

Normally I would be interested in anything that was established or at least theorised via a robust scientific method which could be checked and replicated by further independent robust scientific method. In discussions with my partner, a practising Christian, she says things like "Don't you look around you and see Gods work in the wonder of the universe" or "How can you explain all this", and my stock answer is normally "I have no idea how the universe started or how life started, it is unknown, I just don't believe it was caused by God" and "I can't explain the origins of all this, but if it was God, where did God come from, who or what made God. The problem is only moved up a level if God is invoked".

Thankfully we don't discuss matters like this very often because there is no winner. God cannot ever be proved scientifically, a belief in God is personal, it is an internally held belief which has no logic. If it could be proved by logic and by science there would only be one god celebrated throughout the world. Similarly science cannot answer all the questions now, and probably will never be able to answer all the questions of life, its origin or the origin and mechanisms of the universe. It seems the deeper we dig into things, the more layers unfold, and maybe it is just all too complex for our puny human brains to work out.

Religious adherents have a lovely fall back position, it was God. Science can only keep digging and peeling away layers, with speculation, theory and observation till a theory meets the observations. That then will suffice until a new observation or a new interpretation comes along and requires the theory to be updated, amended or binned.

In a way I envy the religious adherent for their certainty, they believe if I behave in a certain way and love God/Jesus I WILL get eternal life, it's true because God said so. Whereas we non believers know that if we are wrong we are eternally damned AND worse still, no matter how long we live we will still have so many unanswered questions, which science will be struggling with. It doesn't seem entirely fair.

My partner thinks that one day I might change and "find God" but I've told her that is not going to happen, she thinks it's a shame, but no matter how often I think about it, I just can't "get" God, the whole idea of God seems more unlikely than any scientific theory for the formation of the universe and the arrival of life, that's just my opinion.

 

[Astrophile]

In general, I am suspicious of attempts to prove the existence of God with science.

I agree with you, and I am also suspicious of attempts to disprove the existence of God with science. My own atheism is based on my studies of the Bible and of the history of Christianity, not on my scientific research.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What was funny about that post? I meant it as a serious question...

Ignore it.

 

[Dave RP]

Why not just present the scientific evidence for ID instead. Oh wait, that's because even the people who made up ID admit that it isn't science.



Come on, you can do better than this. It doesn't feel like you're really putting your heart into the diversionary personal attacks any more. Are you feeling OK?

Whilst hating to intrude on your discussion, I would say that the total absence of a mechanism for Intelligent Design to work is a bit of an issue. This Intelligent Designer just "wills" or "thinks" it into existence does he/she/it? The said Intelligent Design then just pops out into existence fully formed and working. As an example of wishful thinking it ticks a lot of boxes, but beyond that all I could say is - really???? That's IT????

Now, if your saying the universe was intelligently designed from the beginning 9 billion years ago, set into motion and then the Intelligent Designer cleared off and left his brilliantly designed universe proceed to where we are now, I'd say you're just placing a mystical being in a place where we have a lack of understanding of how things work.

 

[KCfromNC]

Whilst hating to intrude on your discussion, I would say that the total absence of a mechanism for Intelligent Design to work is a bit of an issue. This Intelligent Designer just "wills" or "thinks" it into existence does he/she/it? The said Intelligent Design then just pops out into existence fully formed and working. As an example of wishful thinking it ticks a lot of boxes, but beyond that all I could say is - really???? That's IT????

I agree with you. But it isn't my problem - I'm not the one pretending that something dreamed up by the Discovery Institute to try and sneak religion into public schools is a complete failure.

 

[Michael]

Normally I would be interested in anything that was established or at least theorised via a robust scientific method which could be checked and replicated by further independent robust scientific method.

In that case, concepts like Pantheism/Panentheism enjoy at least as much empirical laboratory support as any current cosmology theory.

In discussions with my partner, a practising Christian, she says things like "Don't you look around you and see Gods work in the wonder of the universe" or "How can you explain all this", and my stock answer is normally "I have no idea how the universe started or how life started, it is unknown, I just don't believe it was caused by God" and "I can't explain the origins of all this, but if it was God, where did God come from, who or what made God. The problem is only moved up a level if God is invoked".

Pretty much all cosmology theories have that same problem by the way.

Thankfully we don't discuss matters like this very often because there is no winner. God cannot ever be proved scientifically, a belief in God is personal, it is an internally held belief which has no logic. If it could be proved by logic and by science there would only be one god celebrated throughout the world. Similarly science cannot answer all the questions now, and probably will never be able to answer all the questions of life, its origin or the origin and mechanisms of the universe. It seems the deeper we dig into things, the more layers unfold, and maybe it is just all too complex for our puny human brains to work out.

Philosophically we don't really seem that far apart to be honest. I fully realize that we haven't figured *everything* out. Newton's formulas for gravity were eventually shown to be flawed in some instances, and we can't even be sure our current mathematical models of gravity are the "right" ones and will never be replaced with another mathematical model. That doesn't mean that I do not experience gravity on a daily basis.

Likewise, I don't think anyone has to "figure out" God simply to experience God in their lives.

Religious adherents have a lovely fall back position, it was God. Science can only keep digging and peeling away layers, with speculation, theory and observation till a theory meets the observations. That then will suffice until a new observation or a new interpretation comes along and requires the theory to be updated, amended or binned.

And yet when Newton's formulas were replaced with Einstein's formulas, nobody claimed that 'gravity' actually changed or that theories about gravity couldn't be trusted.

In a way I envy the religious adherent for their certainty, they believe if I behave in a certain way and love God/Jesus I WILL get eternal life, it's true because God said so. Whereas we non believers know that if we are wrong we are eternally damned AND worse still, no matter how long we live we will still have so many unanswered questions, which science will be struggling with. It doesn't seem entirely fair.

FYI, you might want to checkout the definition of "hell" as described by early Christian theologians like Origen. I'm personally a "universal salvation" kinda guy.

My partner thinks that one day I might change and "find God" but I've told her that is not going to happen, she thinks it's a shame, but no matter how often I think about it, I just can't "get" God, the whole idea of God seems more unlikely than any scientific theory for the formation of the universe and the arrival of life, that's just my opinion.

I'd be happy to debate that point with you anytime you wish.

An Empirical Theory Of God
An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

 

[Loudmouth]

Whatever reasoning it was that you used.

What reasoning would that be?

 

[Loudmouth]

Strawman since I am not against theistic evolution.

Yes, you are. This is from an intelligent design article that you have cited on multiple occasions.

Consider the argument that Michael Behe makes in his book Darwin’s Black Box. There he proposes that design is detectable in many “molecular machines,” including the bacterial flagellum. Behe argues that this tiny motor needs all its parts to function—it is “irreducibly complex.” Such systems in our experience are a hallmark of designed systems, because they require the foresight that is the exclusive jurisdiction of intelligent agents. Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection and random variations, in contrast, requires a functional system at each transition along the way. Natural selection can select for present but not for future function. Notice that Behe’s argument rests not on ignorance, but on what we know about designed systems, the causal powers of intelligent agents, and on our growing knowledge of the cellular world and its many mechanisms. How does one test and discredit Behe’s argument? Describe a realistic, continuously functional Darwinian pathway from simple ancestor to present motor.
http://www.discovery.org/f/494
​

You have been arguing this entire time that life is intelligently design which, BY DEFINITION, means that it didn't evolve, theistically or atheistically.

Also, tagging things as natural doesn't nullify the evidence of a planning mind.

Even the ID articles you cite say otherwise.

Even you argue against naturally occurring abiogenesis at every turn.

It merely demonstrates the fanatical willingness to accept the preposterous for the sake of avoiding what is deemed to be repulsively unacceptable-an intelligent designer.

What is unacceptable is faith based claims backed by zero evidence.

BTW
You disqualify anything that doesn't fit into an atheistic scheme as non-evidence.

Yes, I don't accept faith based beliefs and empty assertions as evidence. Why is that a problem?

 

[Loudmouth]

That is a blatant lie since my belief in an ID, as I repeatedly explain but to no avail, isn't based on your supposed inability to detect how life originated. Lying is a Devil-like characteristic.
John 8:44

Then what evidence is it based on, for the thousandth time?

 

[Loudmouth]

Again!

I am not arguing against the concept of an intelligent designer employing whatever method he chooses to organize a process leading to the creation of living things.

Then why do you constantly argue against abiogenesis?

What I do not accept is that the whole process created itself mindlessly and mindlessly led to the production of such a thing as the human brain among other such things.

Then where is the evidence for a mind?

 

[Loudmouth]

fits all the necessary prerequisites fot the miraculous

Funny how it's only miraculous when they say it's miraculous. The Big Bang which meets all the prerequisites for the miraculous isn't even called miraculous. Instead the words "unimaginable" "spectacular" "mind boggling" are cunningly preferred in order to avoid giving the "wrong" impression.

Interesting to see how you try to discredit scientific theories by making them look more like your religious beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do you know about the undetectable light spectrum if it cannot be detected by the senses?

How do you tell the difference between the undetectable and the non-existant?