Trying to round up an Atheist for Formal Debate on I.D.

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Who said the Intelligent Designer was designed?

I surely did not say that.

Maybe you should.

 

[Non sequitur]

Who said the Intelligent Designer was designed?

I surely did not say that.

You argue an intelligent designer designed incredibly complex, it can't occur naturally, things.

Why would it not be designed itself, per your premise and solution via logic?

 

[pjnlsn]

...

I fear it is you who is begging the question here

This, more or less.

 

[quilbilly]

Which is greater....the hammer....or the carpenter who wields the hammer?

My left thumb will say the hammer. Quite a few times the hammer has won without a mark on it

 

[Elioenai26]

Maybe you should.

Until given a good reason to do so, I will never maintain that the Designer called for in the I.D. argument needs to itself, have a designer. Nor do I even see it as pertinent to the discussion. The whole matter hinges on whether or not there is evidence of design present in the universe.

Either the universe (all space, all time, all matter, and all energy) is:

A. The effect of an Intelligent Mind or Designer

or

B. The universe is the effect of mindless matter.

They both cannot be true, and they both cannot be false. Either A is true and B is false, or A is false and B is true.

It seems pretty clear to me which is the more plausible explanation.

 

[quilbilly]

Until given a good reason to do so, I will never maintain that the Designer called for in the I.D. argument needs to itself, have a designer. Nor do I even see it as pertinent to the discussion. The whole matter hinges on whether or not there is evidence of design present in the universe.

Either the universe (all space, all time, all matter, and all energy) is:

A. The effect of an Intelligent Mind or Designer

or

B. The universe is the effect of mindless matter.

They both cannot be true, and they both cannot be false. Either A is true and B is false, or A is false and B is true.

It seems pretty clear to me which is the more plausible explanation.

OR. The universe has always existed in one form or another

Kind of a good for goose. Good for gander sort of thing

 

[Elioenai26]

My left thumb will say the hammer. Quite a few times the hammer has won without a mark on it

I did not ask your left thumb's opinion, but rather, you, who are a man and hopefully are capable of providing a sincere answer to a sincere question:

Which is greater, the hammer, or the carpenter who wields it?

 

[Elioenai26]

OR. The universe has always existed in one form or another

There is no "or" here quilbilly.

It is the undeniable consensus of contemporary cosmologists, astronomers, and astrophysicists that the universe including all space, time, matter, and energy came into existence instantaneously with the Big Bang which occurred approximately 15 billion years ago.

So any talk of the universe always existing in one form or another is really only done by those courting ideas such as string theory and the assortment of "multiverse" or "world ensemble" theories. Or the incredible "Imaginary Time" that Stephen Hawking actually wants us to believe in... All highly speculative and theoretical.

An "eternal universe" also faces philosophical problems which make it impossible for it to be a sound explanation for our existence.

So once again, to recap, this whole idea of saying: "Well, the universe has just always existed", flies right in the face of contemporary cosmological research and discovery and as such, should be abandoned.

 

[quilbilly]

I did not ask your left thumb's opinion, but rather, you, who are a man and hopefully are capable of providing a sincere answer to a sincere question:

Which is greater, the hammer, or the carpenter who wields it?

I am capable but you will have to define greater. Your response was to me saying natural forces made the snowflake. I didn't say anything about hammer and carpenter. I know my hammer will still be used after I am gone. I'm proud to say my grandson wears it on his belt now.

 

[Non sequitur]

So once again, to recap, this whole idea of saying: "Well, the universe has just always existed", flies right in the face of contemporary cosmological research and discovery and as such, should be abandoned.

Would you say that is equal to or more illogical than saying an intelligent designer (complex things must be designed, and an intelligent designer is complex) doesn't logically require a designer?

Also, you should look at this, in regards to your "there is no 'or'" remark.

 

[quilbilly]

There is no "or" here quilbilly.

It is the undeniable consensus of contemporary cosmologists, astronomers, and astrophysicists that the universe including all space, time, matter, and energy came into existence instantaneously with the Big Bang which occurred approximately 15 billion years ago.

So any talk of the universe always existing in one form or another is really only done by those courting ideas such as string theory and the assortment of "multiverse" or "world ensemble" theories. Or the incredible "Imaginary Time" that Stephen Hawking actually wants us to believe in... All highly speculative and theoretical.

An "eternal universe" also faces philosophical problems which make it impossible for it to be a sound explanation for our existence.

So once again, to recap, this whole idea of saying: "Well, the universe has just always existed", flies right in the face of contemporary cosmological research and discovery and as such, should be abandoned.

The scientific consensus is that matter and energy can not be destroyed. Time started IN THIS UNiVERSE at the big bang.
It is speculative what was before but seems like your I'd has a little speculation in it also. A designer sits around for eternity then decides to create all this (I know I know. But He sits outside of time).

Its all ideas that man has to try to understand his own existence.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Until given a good reason to do so, I will never maintain that the Designer called for in the I.D. argument needs to itself, have a designer. Nor do I even see it as pertinent to the discussion.

Intelligent design in its most basic understanding is simply espousing that design is evidence of a designer.

Now if something such as a couple of sculptures being carved into rock needs an intelligent cause as the explanation for its existence, why would not something such as the human eye, which by comparison is far more complex and intricate than a rock sculpture, need an intelligent designer as its ultimate explanation?

I agree that sculptures such as those at Mt Rushmore are indeed evidence of design, the odds that natural erosion alone could produce a identical structure are certainly astronomical.

But I feel you are being intellectually dishonest, your criteria for a an object designer is based on complexity of said object. This must extend to to the designer itself. If not, then the complexity of an object is not the sole indicator of a designer.

The whole matter hinges on whether or not there is evidence of design present in the universe

We do see design. But the design we see is a born from the creation of humans, from cave paintings, language to rock music.

I don't see any design in the almost infinite emptiness of space which is heading toward eventual heat death. Nor do I see design in our solar system, comprised of 99.999% lifeless rock and gas and a star on a predictable life cycle which we have observed in other stars. I don't see design in rabbit or a parasite that can only survive in the human eye.

But even if it was true that all the above things required a designer, we still don't have any evidence that designer exists, and certainly that the designer is the christian god.

 

[Freodin]

I know that the ID proponents like to ignore this little piece of informations, but perhaps eli will be the one to adress it.

When we talk about "this or that is evidence for design"... what do we mean?
In all the examples the were mentioned here, the line of reasoning is always:
- we know by experience of a way this can come into existence by "intelligent design".
AND
- we know of no way this can come into existence by "natural means".

Computers, for example, are "evidence for design", because we do indeed know that they are designed and build, and we do not know any way that a computer would come into existence otherwise.
Planets, on the other hand, have no experienced or imagined way to come into existence by "intelligent design", but we do have knowlegde of the mechanisms that can form planets.

 

[Freodin]

I agree that sculptures such as those at Mt Rushmore are indeed evidence of design, the odds that natural erosion alone could produce a identical structure are certainly astronomical.

But I feel you are being intellectually dishonest, your criteria for a an object designer is based on complexity of said object. This must extend to to the designer itself. If not, then the complexity of an object is not the sole indicator of a designer.



We do see design. But the design we see is a born from the creation of humans, from cave paintings, language to rock music.

I don't see any design in the almost infinite emptiness of space which is heading toward eventual heat death. Nor do I see design in our solar system, comprised of 99.999% lifeless rock and gas and a star on a predictable life cycle which we have observed in other stars. I don't see design in rabbit or a parasite that can only survive in the human eye.

But even if it was true that all the above things required a designer, we still don't have any evidence that designer exists, and certainly that the designer is the christian god.

I disagree with this line of argumentation. You basically argue from relevance... you see design in something that is relevant to humans, but no design in something that is irrelevant for humans (or contrary to human needs).
A rabbit or parasite could be designed... but are not necessarily so. Thus there is no conclusive evidence for or against design to be found in them.

 

[pjnlsn]

There is no "or" here quilbilly.

It is the undeniable consensus of contemporary cosmologists, astronomers, and astrophysicists that the universe including all space, time, matter, and energy came into existence instantaneously with the Big Bang which occurred approximately 15 billion years ago.

So any talk of the universe always existing in one form or another is really only done by those courting ideas such as string theory and the assortment of "multiverse" or "world ensemble" theories. Or the incredible "Imaginary Time" that Stephen Hawking actually wants us to believe in... All highly speculative and theoretical.

An "eternal universe" also faces philosophical problems which make it impossible for it to be a sound explanation for our existence.

So once again, to recap, this whole idea of saying: "Well, the universe has just always existed", flies right in the face of contemporary cosmological research and discovery and as such, should be abandoned.

The bit about the scientific community might be true, but you'd probably exaggerate what that means. For example the evidence and existing theory with which it is interpreted indicate, to whatever degree of certainty, accuracy, and specificity, that the universe, which is in this context not a strictly descriptive term, and at the earliest time we can consider, went through an extreme phase of expansion, very fast, to say least. And perhaps, although this somewhat would be treading on philosophical ground, infinitely fast.

And if most people working in some scientific field consider this to be instantaneous as you might've meant it, as in for no reason whatsoever, then so be it. There are, after all, quite a lot of other problems to solve, many relevant and/or interesting, without talking about the origins of the whole universe.

And as far as the suggestion that the universe has always existed, I again feel the need to clarify. When a man such as Stephen Hawking, or his contemporaries, speak of the universe having always existed, they do not mean existence in the ordinary sense, in other words of an infinite lifetime, over which the universe was and will be unchanging, and where the passage of time is relatively unchanging as well. I suppose this would be in conflict with the current science.

But this is not what is meant. Rather, what has been suggested that in the initial expansion phase, to describe in a technical manner, the density of the universe increased by some exponential factor or greater, so much so that possibly it can be considered as approaching an infinity as you get closer to the time of exactly 0 in the lifetime of the universe. At least, that's how I understand it.

The two points that should be made being that a) this is not the same as saying the universe 'came into being' for no reason whatsoever, or b) --and this is an extremely obscure topic-- that the possible infinity of some aspect of the very early universe was not accompanied by another balancing infinity, generally --very much so-- speaking. Which would allow for a "sound explanation."

In any case, if we all know what you're getting at, and I think we do, speculative science is more substantial than I.D. And far more substantial than the generalized monotheism which I.D. is drawn from.

P.S. And btw, and not to be overly rude, but if the extent to which you've considered the concept of 'imaginary time' is to gloss over a description, not understand it, then declare it be a 'facepalm' moment , an imaginary number is a mathematical object with a precise definition. And obviously time has a specific definition as well.

 

[Elioenai26]

You speak of "other balancing infinites" among other things. But these concepts are purely theoretical and only used by those who embark on their investigative research of the universe by assuming naturalism at the outset.

Why not just ask yourself what the best explanation is for the raw data we have?

The answer is quite clear it seems.

People ultimately end up weighing evidence regarding a matter according to a particular bias one has regarding the matter. Scientists who start out assuming naturalism/atheism is true, are going to interpret the evidence in light of this bias. Non-naturalists/theists are going to interpret the evidence in light of their bias.

The question is:

"Which position is actually true?"

 

[KCfromNC]

You speak of "other balancing infinites" among other things. But these concepts are purely theoretical and only used by those who embark on their investigative research of the universe by assuming naturalism at the outset.

Yeah, scientists tend to use science to do scientific investigations. It has a pretty good track record for learning about reality. What other approach do you suggest, and by comparison how well has it done in understanding reality? Please be specific.

 

[Freodin]

The question is:

"Which position is actually true?"

And a good question that is.

Now for the next question: "How do we find out?"

"It is obvious!" is a prime choice for the ID proponents... but I have yet to find one who could explain the hows and whos and whys... which should be easy if it is so obvious.

"X is designed. Y is in some way similar to X. Therefore Y is designed." has at least a reasoning behind it. But again, ID fails either to explain just what these similarities are, or will start to go off to explain them away when the similarities do not fit within their worldview. (Complexity means design, but a complex designer does not need to be designed.)

 

[Tinker Grey]

Perhaps a reasonable question is how does one know that something is undesigned.

 

[Freodin]

Perhaps a reasonable question is how does one know that something is undesigned.

For a serious questioner, provided the potential existence of an omnipotent and ineffable designer, that really presents a problem.

For the ID proponents, it is quite easy (and another point why they are not doing science): if they don't like it, it is not designed.