The Undesigned Designer

[Gene Parmesan]

Read any paper on evolution. If there is even one assumption in a chain of evolutionary events my point is proven.

View attachment 198354

And yet, you can't provide a single one.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And yet, you can't provide a single one.

Trust me, it woudn't make any difference to you.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Trust me, it woudn't make any difference to you.

Your dodging this really betrays your lack of confidence in your position.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Your dodging this really betrays your lack of confidence in your position.

I've held this position firmly for over 60 years. No one has ever shown me a good reason to change.

Evolution and creation are alike in that neither can be proven absolutely. However there are much greater rewards for me in believing in creation.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You've been here far too long to not understand the difference between a "scientific theory" and the colloquial usage of "theory." Words can have different meanings in different contexts. You and I use the term "solution" in a different way than a chemist would. We should be able to move past this part of the discussion...

And the dictionary defines those different contexts. The understanding of the term by some here was not a listed definition in the dictionary

 

[dmmesdale]

Some people think that because we don't fully understand how life, the universe and everything came about, it must have been designed by a designer. This is a basic fallacy, known as the fallacy of personal incredulity. The irony is that it is never applied to the supposed designer itself. All sorts of special pleadings are employed to try and argue that the undesigned designer is an exception to the "logic" that is being used.

Until we find out more, what is so unacceptable about admitting that we don't fully know or understand?

Yours is an appeal to ignorance and the future. It is a fallacy because it assumes there is something out there to find which will invalidate God. They have had 150 yrs and counting, and they sill have zip for the origin of bio life here.

Also, your supposition has zero to do with working science since it cannot be applied consistently. All a designing intelligence has to do is beat out the alternative hypo to advance. One does not need to know the supposed lineage of the living source to beat out your hopeful default which has no evidential basis or precedent. You selectively apply special pleading to the undesigned designer and ignore any proposed cause would be invalidated using the same methodology. In itself, a specal plead.

If the options are nonlife or the intervention of a living source for the first cause of bio life here then the latter wins based on all we know about life which requires a living source. Every living thing on Earth had a prior living source. If we are looking for the first cause then why assume a nonliving only? It is a flat out contradiction to everything we know.

If the probability of bio life arising from nonlife is virtually zero then the alternative option of bio life as the result of the intervention of a living source is virtually certain. Since causes are more complicated then their effects then there is nothing irrational about assuming an infinite extrinsic cause for a host of finite situations including bio life here. If nothing then always nothing and if something then always something. The alternative is everything from nothing which is absurd. Contradictions do not exist.

 

[pshun2404]

Because Barry found a Designer difficult to understand, and is unaware of how it works, he makes out like it's not true.

Now google "personal increduality" at Barry's link

Your logical fallacy is personal incredulity

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Yours is an appeal to ignorance and the future. It is a fallacy because it assumes there is something out there to find which will invalidate God. They have had 150 yrs and counting, and they sill have zip for the origin of bio life here.

Also, your supposition has zero to do with working science since it cannot be applied consistently. All a designing intelligence has to do is beat out the alternative hypo to advance. One does not need to know the supposed lineage of the living source to beat out your hopeful default which has no evidential basis or precedent. You selectively apply special pleading to the undesigned designer and ignore any proposed cause would be invalidated using the same methodology. In itself, a specal plead.

If the options are nonlife or the intervention of a living source for the first cause of bio life here then the latter wins based on all we know about life which requires a living source. Every living thing on Earth had a prior living source. If we are looking for the first cause then why assume a nonliving only? It is a flat out contradiction to everything we know.

If the probability of bio life arising from nonlife is virtually zero then the alternative option of bio life as the result of the intervention of a living source is virtually certain. Since causes are more complicated then their effects then there is nothing irrational about assuming an infinite extrinsic cause for a host of finite situations including bio life here. If nothing then always nothing and if something then always something. The alternative is everything from nothing which is absurd. Contradictions do not exist.

Every life we know has come from a naturally occurring biological life. We have never witnessed a supernatural entity bring forth life. Your logic seems to indicate your conclusion is at least as absurd.

But if we want to just call it life and call God life, then life can only come from life and God requires a source. And we all know that the source for God goes by the name Special Pleading.

 

[AV1611VET]

We have never witnessed a supernatural entity bring forth life.

Not yet, anyway.

Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I've held this position firmly for over 60 years. No one has ever shown me a good reason to change.

Evolution and creation are alike in that neither can be proven absolutely. However there are much greater rewards for me in believing in creation.

No scientific theory can be "proven absolutely".
Science doesn't deal in absolutes. They can only ever be supported or proven false.

 

[Colter]

Some people think that because we don't fully understand how life, the universe and everything came about, it must have been designed by a designer. This is a basic fallacy, known as the fallacy of personal incredulity. The irony is that it is never applied to the supposed designer itself. All sorts of special pleadings are employed to try and argue that the undesigned designer is an exception to the "logic" that is being used.

Until we find out more, what is so unacceptable about admitting that we don't fully know or understand?

Finites can't make absolute statements about the nonexistance of the infinite.