The stumbling block for atheists.

[bhsmte]

It suddenly and inexplicably, albeit predictably becomes surprisingly easy whenever an intelligent designer might be involved.

This is all very pretictable, no question about that.

 

[Radrook]

This is all very pretictable, no question about that.

The atheist reaction? Definitely 100% predictable.

 

[Loudmouth]

The atheist reaction? Definitely 100% predictable.

Yet another childish post avoiding the evidence.

 

[Radrook]

Yet another childish post avoiding the evidence.

Tagging things childish doesn't magically make them so. That is wishful thinking.

 

[Dave RP]

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?

 

[Radrook]

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.

 

[Dave RP]

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.

Thanks for the response.

I never said anyone needs to know the "exact nature" of a creator to infer intelligent design, what I am saying is you have a belief in that creator, there is a "God" like thing who created the universe and everything in it. The issue with a buildings design is completely different, we know a building is human made, the creator of the building is a person, aided these days by a computer but nonetheless a person - we don't need to infer anything because we know that buildings ONLY EVER appear when designed and built by humans, with or without mechanical assistance.

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. We at present cannot describe those natural processes in their entirety and have some serious gaps to fill in, but we edge closer to full explanation little by little. You are saying that a designer is required (or at least inferred) because it all looks designed (have I got that right?).

But that still leaves the pretty large gap of where did the designer come from, who or what made the designer and what is the process in which IT (note the non gender specific definition) designs and makes things? 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.

Fundamentally it is about belief, a significant percentage of the individuals on this site have that belief in a creator (designer if you like) with the added belief that the Bible is HIS word (the Bibles definition not mine) and we will all be judged etc. on HIS return. That's absolutely reasonable and fair enough, some on here are believers, a few are not. That's how it is, isn't it?

 

[Freodin]

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?

After all, while "where did he/she/it come from?" would be an interesting fact to know about "the creator", this is not what is a stake here. The real question we are interested in is "how did he/she/it do it?"

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".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...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".

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.

If I were a betting man, my money would be on denial; a move from, 'you haven't been able to do it in the lab' to, 'doing it in the lab doesn't count', or maybe 'you did it in the lab, so that's intelligent design'.

 

[Loudmouth]

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?

The ability and willingness to follow the evidence has nothing to do with believing or not believing in God. The scientific community is made up of people of all faiths and no faith, and yet more than 99.9% of working biologists accept evolution as the process that produced the biodiversity we see today. To break this down by ones beliefs about God is simply not the reality.

 

[Loudmouth]

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?

That's not what people are saying, however. Scientists will openly state that they don't know how life started. The reason they are looking for a natural process for the origin of life is because they are able to look for it. On top of that, millions of other mysteries in the natural world have been solved by looking for natural processes, so it seems to be the prudent choice for solving this mystery as well. With supernatural creation, what more can you do than just believe in it?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

That's completely untrue. There are many possible design scenarios and all of them have an impact on how you model intelligent design.

1. All of the designing happened at once at one time in history.

2. Designing occurred continuously over billions of years that life has been on the planet.

3. A simply designed replicator was put on the planet and life has evolved since then with no input from a designer.

All of these scenarios have different implications for what we should see in the fossil record and in the genomes of living species. You can't make inferences without this information.

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.

Buildings don't reproduce and they don't evolve.

It is precisely because we know exactly how things work that we have concluded a designer.

That's where you run into trouble. When humans design they do not force their designs to fit into a nested hierarchy. Evolution does produce a nested hierarchy. What do we see with life? We see a nested hierarchy. We know how evolution works, and we see the evidence for evolution in life. We know how design works, and that evidence isn't there.

 

[Michael]

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.

The two basic problems with that argument is that nothing about current cosmology theory is "natural" by Earthly standards, in fact ninety five plus percent of current beliefs fail to show up in the lab. Secondly, there's nothing preventing God from being "natural". Pantheism and Panentheism are two obvious definitions of a "natural" God.

But that still leaves the pretty large gap of where did the designer come from,

Nobody can explain where inflation came from, or "dark energy" came from, or 'dark matter' came from either. Lots of gaps exist in our understanding, and many things that seem to offer an "explanation" of one thing, often lead us to many other unanswerable questions.

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.

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.

 

[Michael]

Finally, form an atheist viewpoint, if God really is needed to explain it all, where did God come from, who made God?

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.

 

[quatona]

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.

 

[Michael]

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.

My point was that we don't know what caused anything, so not having an explanation of what 'caused' God doesn't allow one to write off the concept, anymore than not knowing what "caused" inflation automatically disqualifies the concept.

I did give you the 'what' option.

 

[Freodin]

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.

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 known 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.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

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.

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.

-_- 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 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.

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.

 

[Michael]

Two points.
First, I'd rather say that our understanding, not the lack of it, is what makes us reject a conscious "natural" designer.

Why? We have plenty of examples of "natural intelligent designers" to be found in nature living right here on planet Earth. Why wouldn't we expect that to find an intelligent designer behind what we call "nature"?

Under the knows laws - and hypotheses, it would include your beloved plasma ideas! - of nature, a pan- or panentheistic "God" cannot function.

Not "function" in what physical sense? The universe seems to 'function' pretty well, day in and day out. The sun seems to still be shining here today.

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.

The ironies that come up in these conversations are interesting, aren't they?

 

[Michael]

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.

I still think this all comes back to the term "evidence", and what exactly you mean by that term. Exactly what type of physical "evidence" do you think there is for "gravity waves" at the moment, and how "convincing" would you say that evidence is at the moment?

I also think you're going to need to stop assuming that God must be 'supernatural' in origin in order to exist. That also seems to be a stumbling block for most conversations with atheists on the topic of God.