The stumbling block for atheists.

[Radrook]

There is your problem. You don't want to "demonstrate", because you cannot demonstrate, beyond claiming "it is obvious".

If it was obvious, you shouldn't have no problems demonstrating it.

But it isn't obvious. There are legitimate doubts, there are legitimate alternatives.

Sorry you feel that way. But-I guess it is what it is. You are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Skreeper]

True, there are many opinions, some more reasonable than others. Please note that experts in the field are not infallible and have been known to make very serious mistakes. So a 100% trust based on expertise alone can lead to the entertainment of illogical ideas such as the geocentric model of our universe which experts of those times supported. Or the expert conclusion that the Milky Way contained all the stars in the universe. Or the former expert idea that the universe had always existed in its present form. These were concepts' which the majority of scientists upheld as undeniable truths until they were proven to be bogus. So an appeal to expertise has value only to a certain degree because humans are fallible and make mistakes.

I agree and that's why science doesn't deal in absolutes. Scientific theories are always open for revision.

 

[Radrook]

It seems you forgot the "second".

But fine, let's say it is always and exclusively "scientists" who identify "coded information". Then you should accept that it is also those same scientists who disagree with your assertion that this coded information has to be "intelligently designed".

And that still doesn't change that fact that you do indeed assert that "coded information must be intelligently designed, therefore when we see coded information, we can conclude an intelligent designed".
I guess you were to adress that in your "second" point. I hope you were, at least.

LOL! True, once you say first, then a second is expected, and third and finally a finally. My bad!

About the scientists contradicting themselves? Well, that is typical of desperation and/or confused thinking.

 

[Freodin]

LOL! True, once you say first, then a second is expected, and third and finally a finally. My bad!

Not that you are going to amend it.

About the scientists contradicting themselves? Well, that is typical of desperation and/or confused thinking.

I can't even tell anymore if you are serious or not.

But if we are talking about "contradicting themselves... you already said:

Bias is a human tendency that crops up among all groups regardless of race, nationality, education, religious or philosophical persuasion. So I am not restricting it to any one group.

It seems that the one group that you exclude is yourself. People who disagree with your superior assessments of "the obvious" are desperate and confused. It is simply not possible that you might be wrong.

Fascinating.

 

[Skreeper]

...Bias is a human tendency that crops up among all groups regardless of race, nationality, education, religious or philosophical persuasion. So I am not restricting it to any one group.

Alright lets do a little test: Do you think that the ideas about intelligent design could be false? That it was indeed the result of natural processes?

 

[Radrook]

I agree and that's why science doesn't deal in absolutes. Scientific theories are always open for revision.

Hmmmm, wellll, I am not so sure whether the actual practice is always in accord with that avoidance of absolutes ideal. Abiogenesis is a good example.. Scientists aren't trying to see whether or not it is false. Instead, they assume that it happened and are merely seeking ways to discover HOW it happened. But the fact that it happened or had to happen is never placed in doubt nor even open to serious discussion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am not striving to prove the supernatural. This is getting tiresome and useless! You are taking my statements out of context.

You're not answering the question....
Third time... if what you say there is true, then why did you object to Screeper when he said that science isn't capable of demonstrating the supernatural?

It's just kind of weird that you would get all defensive about such a statement, if you aren't even positing the super natural in the first place...............

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are placing the cart before the horse. That's like saying that we are assuming that a bow and arrow are designed and therefore when we see a bow and arrow we call it designed.

No. It seems you didn't not understand what he was saying.

It's more like that, before we make any judgement about bows and arrows, we have established that there is this species called Homo Sapiens wich is known to manufacture tools. And we have quite a good understanding how these tools are created.

That is how we recognise bows and arrows as being of human manufacturing.

No one is assuming anything before concluding. We are concluding an intelligent designer after observations which lead us to that justifiable inference.

That requires assuming that a designer exists, before asking the question.

 

[Radrook]

Not that you are going to amend it.


I can't even tell anymore if you are serious or not.

But if we are talking about "contradicting themselves... you already said:

It seems that the one group that you exclude is yourself. People who disagree with your superior assessments of "the obvious" are desperate and confused. It is simply not possible that you might be wrong.

Fascinating.

Well, since I never intended a second or a third, it is illogical to demand that I follow through with the unintended. Please chuck it down as a typo of sorts. My apologies.

Well, about groups, I am not a group. About the possibility of being wrong? I never claimed infallibility nor do I believe in human infallibility. So my views are simply my views to be accepted or rejected by anyone who feels that they are wrong.

Do I feel that they are wrong? Well, if I did then why would I be proposing them? I'm sure that YOU don't consider your opinion wrong-right? Does that mean that you are claiming infallibility? Of course not. All it means is that you feel certain within the parameters of your very considerable human limitations. Hope that clears up the misunderstanding.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't know who this Screeper fellow is and do not recall accusing him of saying anything at all.

Let me refresh your memory then....

Screeper says:

There is a problem with this view: When we (for the sake of the argument) allow the existence of the supernatural that doesn't get us to a specific god. One could as well claim that universe-creating pixies are responsible since this would be a supernatural event.

But the point is, we don't just claim that the supernatural doesn't exist. We have the problem that science is at the moment incapable of investigating supernatural causation. Unless someone comes up with a mechanism with which we can investigate the supernatural, it is by definition irrational to say it definitely exists. Existence has to be demonstrated.

You then reply to that quote with:

You are placing limits on the term-"demonstration" in order to avoid the very demonstration you demand.

"You" referring to the person you are quoting, which is Screeper.
I then asked you what those limits supposedly are. You then replied by detailing what you consider those limits to be. I then asked where Screeper said anything remotely like that. Because, just to remind you again, in your reply to screeper you said rather clearly "You are placing limits". "You" in that sentence, being Screeper.


It seems like you don't realise that we can actually scroll back in this thread and read what was said...


So, to conclude.... YES, you very much accused Screeper of such things.


EDIT: I just saw in subsequent posts that you admitted to it. Good for you. Now that we have a nice precedent, which you acknoweldged, let's take the next step in this awareness raising.... You actually do this quite frequently! Accusing people of doing/saying things they actually never did / said.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To you.

To anybody. As all of us keep telling you.

 

[Radrook]

No. It seems you didn't not understand what he was saying.

It's more like that, before we make any judgement about bows and arrows, we have established that there is this species called Homo Sapiens wich is known to manufacture tools. And we have quite a good understanding how these tools are created.

That is how we recognise bows and arrows as being of human manufacturing.



That requires assuming that a designer exists, before asking the question.

Once more, the conclusion that there is an intelligent designer is reached AFTER an examination of the phenomena and not BEFORE the evaluation of the phenomena. Are there people who might think in the superstitious way you describe? Of course there are. But that is not what the intelligent design concept involves. It involves observation, evaluation and conclusion. That you describe it otherwise is a misrepresentation

BTW
We are talking about evidence of a creative mind not creatures such as humans.

 

[Radrook]

To anybody. As all of us keep telling you.

But all of us keep telling all of you to the contrary.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And as I have pointed out to you in other threads, your modus operandi prohibits that kind of demonstration.

That was actually in this thread.
And you JUST acknowledged also that that was not a warranted accusation at his address, since when I asked you what those limits supposedly were, you started rambling about things that Screeper never mentioned. At all.

I was initially pleased to see you acknowledge your error. But apparantly, it lasted no longer then 3 posts before you already forgot about it again.

 

[Freodin]

No. It seems you didn't not understand what he was saying.

It's more like that, before we make any judgement about bows and arrows, we have established that there is this species called Homo Sapiens wich is known to manufacture tools. And we have quite a good understanding how these tools are created.

That is how we recognise bows and arrows as being of human manufacturing.

That is not quite correct... or at least it should not be correct.

We start with the observations of the object. We find out the necessary steps of how such an object could have come into existence. Then we postulate mechanisms that could have resulted in these steps. We try to find evidence or examples for these mechanisms.
And then we make a judgement of how this object could have come into existence.

In the case of bow and arrow, we have examples of the mechanisms of "here's how humans do such things". We do not have any examples of examples or evidence for "here's how it could have happened if humans didn't do it". That's why we say (provisionally, with a high degree of certainty: humans did it.)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes I did read what you posted. But that is an exercise in futility when those involved claim inability to see what should be obvious, have a modus operandi which prohibits any deviation whatsoever and who prefer to assume the supernatural when no supernatural is necessary in order to reject.

Screeper never expressed any such sentiments and you admitted to that already.

Stop this dishonesty and just answer his question.

 

[Radrook]

That was actually in this thread.
And you JUST acknowledged also that that was not a warranted accusation at his address, since when I asked you what those limits supposedly were, you started rambling about things that Screeper never mentioned. At all.

I was initially pleased to see you acknowledge your error. But apparantly, it lasted no longer then 3 posts before you already forgot about it again.

Please note that you are dealing with one person-ME, whereas I am dealing with many as well as with serious personal distractions which interfere with my activity on this forum. As for Skreeper, I already acknowledged my mistake and apologized to him personally. So I thought that was resolved.

 

[Radrook]

Screeper never expressed any such sentiments and you admitted to that already.

Stop this dishonesty and just answer his question.

As I said before, the issue with Skreeper was resolved.

 

[Skreeper]

As I said before, the issue with Skreeper was resolved.

All is good, BUT you still have not responded to my question:

Do you think that the ideas about intelligent design could be false? That it was indeed the result of natural processes?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Once more, the conclusion that there is an intelligent designer is reached AFTER an examination of the phenomena and not BEFORE the evaluation of the phenomena.

Yet, when asked where we can review this supposed work, we are left in the dark.
And it's kind of curious that all the people who claim this, just happen to all be theists.
They all happen to already believe that this designer exists and even what his identity is.

Before asking any question, before investigating any phenomena.

And, off course, when asked how we can review this work and how it can be tested and/or repeated... we are once again left in the dark.

Then, all we get is either a variation of "it's obvious!" or we are denied that info and accused of some variation of "you wouldn't accept it anyway!".

So, can you really blame us that we conclude that you have nothing, but an a priori religious belief?

Are there people who might think in the superstitious way you describe? Of course there are. But that is not what the intelligent design concept involves.

Except that that is exactly what "intelligent design" involves. At least, the concept that is generally known as being "intelligent design". You insist on saying that "your" ID model is somehow different from what everybody else knows as the "ID model". I have yet to hear the specifics of "your" model though and how it differs from what everybody else understands by that name.

It involves observation, evaluation and conclusion.

Or so you keep saying.

Are you going to explain it any time soon?

I mean... I've only been asking for about a month now...

We are talking about evidence of a creative mind not creatures such as humans.

Humans aren't creative minds?
And what is that evidence again?