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

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I'm still waiting for Dave's earth shattering evidence for ID.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm still waiting for Dave's earth shattering evidence for ID.

I have a strong suspicion that it is the same tired arguments that have been making the rounds for the last 15 years.

 

[pjnlsn]

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?"

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

What is it you're suggesting, specifically?

As far as what else you've written, It's not totally true that to speak of the universe always existing, in the way that Hawking and his contemporaries do, is to make real solutions impossible.

In any case, it is what it is. It is, strictly speaking, a suggestion. But again, even the frontiers of science and scientific theory are more definite than I.D., and certainly more than the general monotheistic deity which I.D. is drawn from.

 

[Tinker Grey]

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.

I wonder if ID proponents ever consider anything undesigned. If not, isn't the concept unfalsifiable?

 

[Elioenai26]

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

What is it you're suggesting, specifically?

As far as what else you've written, It's not totally true that to speak of the universe always existing, in the way that Hawking and his contemporaries do, is to make real solutions impossible.

In any case, it is what it is. It is, strictly speaking, a suggestion. But again, even the frontiers of science and scientific theory are more definite than I.D., and certainly more than the general monotheistic deity which I.D. is drawn from.

Is it likely that we could know beyond all doubt that the universe was designed or not?

No. For there is very little in life that can be known beyond all doubt with absolute certainty.

Could someone say that from the evidence they have considered, that it is their position that the universe was not designed? Sure, many people hold this position. But this is a view that is based upon one's interpretation of the available evidence. Our knowledge is not complete, nor is it all encompassing of every possible state of affairs. So the one who says that they do not believe in I.D. is basing this statement on the fact that they have interpreted the evidence at their disposal. The one saying this does not possess all knowledge of all possible states of affairs nor is this conclusion an unbiased, purely objective conclusion. The conclusion is the result of a reasoning process that is colored or guided or influenced by one's presuppositions.

The same is true for the proponent of I.D. In argument, the proponent of I.D. comes to his conclusions the same exact way that the antagonist of I.D. does i.e via a process of reasoning and weighing/interpreting evidence. However, different conclusions are arrived at because of the different presuppositions one brings to the table.

For example, when I look at the human body, I see a marvelous, amazing, incredibly complex biological system or "machine". The brain alone is so amazing in what it can do and how it functions that libraries could be filled with volumes written on it. The eye as well. When I look at their structures, their components, their functions, I cannot rationally come to the conclusion that the brain, or the eye, or the human body is the result of a purely naturalistic, materialistic, unguided process. All that is within me cries out that these things are at the very least, the result of something that is incredibly intelligent, incredibly powerful, incredibly awesome to be able to make all of the interconnected systems work and function the way they do.

Some, when they look at the human body, or brain, or eye, say: "Well it is indeed very amazing and very complex, but it is not designed. These things may appear to be designed, but really they are just the byproducts of an unguided, naturalistic evolutionary process.

I cannot agree with the latter position. It seems to be so quite clearly a statement that is disconnected from reality as to border on the insane.

Lets take in our hand, a regular nail used by carpenters. Let us hold it in our hand and look at it. It is quite simple. A long slender piece of metal, with a flat piece at the top and a pointy bottom. Nothing spectacular or complex about it at all. And despite this, we still would say that it was designed by someone who makes nails. And if we can reason that a nail requires a nailmaker, even though it is quite simple and lacks complexity......how can anyone possibly say that the language within our DNA could just pop into existence without any superintendence and arranged in such precise order as to communicate to the various parts of our body the instructions needed for us to develop, survive and reproduce. It must be remembered that DNA sequences must be converted into messages that can be used to produce proteins, which are the complex molecules that do most of the work in our bodies.

And am I supposed to believe that this all "just" happens? Did Handel's Messiah compose itself? Did Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet write itself? Were not intelligent minds behind it all?

 

[quatona]

Could someone say that from the evidence they have considered, that it is their position that the universe was not designed? Sure, many people hold this position. But this is a view that is based upon one's interpretation of the available evidence. Our knowledge is not complete, nor is it all encompassing of every possible state of affairs. So the one who says that they do not believe in I.D. is basing this statement on the fact that they have interpreted the evidence at their disposal. The one saying this does not possess all knowledge of all possible states of affairs nor is this conclusion an unbiased, purely objective conclusion. The conclusion is the result of a reasoning process that is colored or guided or influenced by one's presuppositions.

As far as I am concerned, I am not the antagonist you are bringing up here.
I don´t claim that the universe is uncreated.
All I am doing here is waiting for the promised evidence for the universe being created.

If the evidence for a created universe amounts to the observation that there is no proof for an uncreated universe (which is the only point of your entire post)...oh well, that´s a bit disappointing seeing all the noise that´s been made about this alleged evidence.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Lawrence Krauss on Life, the Universe and Nothing - YouTube

 

[quilbilly]

Is it likely that we could know beyond all doubt that the universe was designed or not?

No. For there is very little in life that can be known beyond all doubt with absolute certainty.

Could someone say that from the evidence they have considered, that it is their position that the universe was not designed? Sure, many people hold this position. But this is a view that is based upon one's interpretation of the available evidence. Our knowledge is not complete, nor is it all encompassing of every possible state of affairs. So the one who says that they do not believe in I.D. is basing this statement on the fact that they have interpreted the evidence at their disposal. The one saying this does not possess all knowledge of all possible states of affairs nor is this conclusion an unbiased, purely objective conclusion. The conclusion is the result of a reasoning process that is colored or guided or influenced by one's presuppositions.

The same is true for the proponent of I.D. In argument, the proponent of I.D. comes to his conclusions the same exact way that the antagonist of I.D. does i.e via a process of reasoning and weighing/interpreting evidence. However, different conclusions are arrived at because of the different presuppositions one brings to the table.

For example, when I look at the human body, I see a marvelous, amazing, incredibly complex biological system or "machine". The brain alone is so amazing in what it can do and how it functions that libraries could be filled with volumes written on it. The eye as well. When I look at their structures, their components, their functions, I cannot rationally come to the conclusion that the brain, or the eye, or the human body is the result of a purely naturalistic, materialistic, unguided process. All that is within me cries out that these things are at the very least, the result of something that is incredibly intelligent, incredibly powerful, incredibly awesome to be able to make all of the interconnected systems work and function the way they do.

Some, when they look at the human body, or brain, or eye, say: "Well it is indeed very amazing and very complex, but it is not designed. These things may appear to be designed, but really they are just the byproducts of an unguided, naturalistic evolutionary process.

I cannot agree with the latter position. It seems to be so quite clearly a statement that is disconnected from reality as to border on the insane.

Lets take in our hand, a regular nail used by carpenters. Let us hold it in our hand and look at it. It is quite simple. A long slender piece of metal, with a flat piece at the top and a pointy bottom. Nothing spectacular or complex about it at all. And despite this, we still would say that it was designed by someone who makes nails. And if we can reason that a nail requires a nailmaker, even though it is quite simple and lacks complexity......how can anyone possibly say that the language within our DNA could just pop into existence without any superintendence and arranged in such precise order as to communicate to the various parts of our body the instructions needed for us to develop, survive and reproduce. It must be remembered that DNA sequences must be converted into messages that can be used to produce proteins, which are the complex molecules that do most of the work in our bodies.

And am I supposed to believe that this all "just" happens? Did Handel's Messiah compose itself? Did Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet write itself? Were not intelligent minds behind it all?[/QUOTE




Still stuck on the carpenter stuff I see
Despite what you may have heard 16d nails do not give birth to 8d nails

Evolution doesn't work that way and I'm fairly sure you know better]

 

[pjnlsn]

Is it likely that we could know beyond all doubt that the universe was designed or not?

No. For there is very little in life that can be known beyond all doubt with absolute certainty.

Could someone say that from the evidence they have considered, that it is their position that the universe was not designed? Sure, many people hold this position. But this is a view that is based upon one's interpretation of the available evidence. Our knowledge is not complete, nor is it all encompassing of every possible state of affairs. So the one who says that they do not believe in I.D. is basing this statement on the fact that they have interpreted the evidence at their disposal. The one saying this does not possess all knowledge of all possible states of affairs nor is this conclusion an unbiased, purely objective conclusion. The conclusion is the result of a reasoning process that is colored or guided or influenced by one's presuppositions.

The same is true for the proponent of I.D. In argument, the proponent of I.D. comes to his conclusions the same exact way that the antagonist of I.D. does i.e via a process of reasoning and weighing/interpreting evidence. However, different conclusions are arrived at because of the different presuppositions one brings to the table.

For example, when I look at the human body, I see a marvelous, amazing, incredibly complex biological system or "machine". The brain alone is so amazing in what it can do and how it functions that libraries could be filled with volumes written on it. The eye as well. When I look at their structures, their components, their functions, I cannot rationally come to the conclusion that the brain, or the eye, or the human body is the result of a purely naturalistic, materialistic, unguided process. All that is within me cries out that these things are at the very least, the result of something that is incredibly intelligent, incredibly powerful, incredibly awesome to be able to make all of the interconnected systems work and function the way they do.

Some, when they look at the human body, or brain, or eye, say: "Well it is indeed very amazing and very complex, but it is not designed. These things may appear to be designed, but really they are just the byproducts of an unguided, naturalistic evolutionary process.

I cannot agree with the latter position. It seems to be so quite clearly a statement that is disconnected from reality as to border on the insane.

Lets take in our hand, a regular nail used by carpenters. Let us hold it in our hand and look at it. It is quite simple. A long slender piece of metal, with a flat piece at the top and a pointy bottom. Nothing spectacular or complex about it at all. And despite this, we still would say that it was designed by someone who makes nails. And if we can reason that a nail requires a nailmaker, even though it is quite simple and lacks complexity......how can anyone possibly say that the language within our DNA could just pop into existence without any superintendence and arranged in such precise order as to communicate to the various parts of our body the instructions needed for us to develop, survive and reproduce. It must be remembered that DNA sequences must be converted into messages that can be used to produce proteins, which are the complex molecules that do most of the work in our bodies.

And am I supposed to believe that this all "just" happens? Did Handel's Messiah compose itself? Did Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet write itself? Were not intelligent minds behind it all?

The essence of the above is just to imply that humans were designed because other things are designed. But this, and how anyone feels about the question, is irrelevant, very simply.

And, indeed, it's illogical to a) assume any principle for the sake of it and b) to suggest that an object which is simple and designed demonstrates or even supports it.

There are a great many things wrong with the above post. The only thing it amounts to is to show that some people's thoughts on certain topics are cluttered and disorganized. The phrase 'purple haze' comes to mind.

 

[Elioenai26]

The essence of the above is just to imply that humans were designed because other things are designed. But this, and how anyone feels about the question, is irrelevant, very simply.

And, indeed, it's illogical to a) assume any principle for the sake of it and b) to suggest that an object which is simple and designed demonstrates or even supports it.

There are a great many things wrong with the above post. The only thing it amounts to is to show that some people's thoughts on certain topics are cluttered and disorganized. The phrase 'purple haze' comes to mind.

Your post contains several points I will disagree with:

1. No where in any of my posts have I reasoned that because other things are designed, humans are designed too. So your opening statement is false.

2. If you are referring to inference of a designer from design as a principle, I am happy to inform you that you are wrong again. For I have never assumed said principle for the sake of it. All I have done is state that evidence of design is evidence of a designer. Surely you agree with me on this.

3. Using a nail as an example of a simple designed object and saying that if we assume a nailmaker made the nail then it is not irrational to assume someone or something designed the human body and its components is in no way illogical. Saying that it is illogical does not make it so.

4. You say that there are a great many things wrong with my post, you then summarize these "great many things" as being demonstrative of the fact that some people's thoughts are cluttered and disorganized on certain topics. But this summation here is quite vague. Whose thoughts are you referring to? Mine? If so, how does maintaining that evidence of design is evidence of a designer lead you to the conclusion that my thoughts are cluttered and disorganized? Surely you agree with me, and recognize this has been the point of my most recent posts here?

Now if you don't agree with the design inference principle, then that's ok too. But if you don't agree that evidence of design is evidence of a designer and want that to be more than just your opinion....then present an argument and substantiate it.

If you don't think that evidence of design is evidence of a designer, then you must demonstrate why.

Good luck...

 

[KCfromNC]

3. Using a nail as an example of a simple designed object and saying that if we assume a nailmaker made the nail then it is not irrational to assume someone or something designed the human body and its components is in no way illogical.

What's the logical connection between nails and human body in this statement? Seems like a rather large jump from a known product of human design to humans themselves.

But if you don't agree that evidence of design is evidence of a designer

Who is claiming that, specifically?

 

[Freodin]

3. Using a nail as an example of a simple designed object and saying that if we assume a nailmaker made the nail then it is not irrational to assume someone or something designed the human body and its components is in no way illogical. Saying that it is illogical does not make it so.

I have a simple question for you. Should be very easy to answer, so please make the efford to answer it directly, instead of with an evasion.

How do you know that a nail is designed?

 

[Loudmouth]

3. Using a nail as an example of a simple designed object and saying that if we assume a nailmaker made the nail then it is not irrational to assume someone or something designed the human body and its components is in no way illogical. Saying that it is illogical does not make it so.

Have you been taught about the "birds and the bees"? I find it stunning that in this day and age someone would not understand the basic differences between how humans are made and how nails are made.

If you don't think that evidence of design is evidence of a designer, then you must demonstrate why.

Nails do not come about through naturally occuring mechanisms outside of design. Humans do come about through natural means, namely biological reproduction. We can also observe the process by which species change over time. It is again a natural process that occurs outside of intelligent design. That seems to be a pretty big difference life and nails.

 

[Gadarene]

Have you been taught about the "birds and the bees"? I find it stunning that in this day and age someone would not understand the basic differences between how humans are made and how nails are made.

el probably heard the term "nailing" and got confuzzled

 

[Elioenai26]

I have a simple question for you. Should be very easy to answer, so please make the efford to answer it directly, instead of with an evasion.

How do you know that a nail is designed?

As Loudmouth put it:

"Nails do not come about through naturally occuring mechanisms outside of design."

 

[Elioenai26]

We can also observe the process by which species change over time. It is again a natural process that occurs outside of intelligent design.

How certain are you that the above statement is true?

 

[Loudmouth]

How certain are you that the above statement is true?

Quite certain given the mountains of evidence that support it.

 

[Loudmouth]

As Loudmouth put it:

"Nails do not come about through naturally occuring mechanisms outside of design."

If an archaeologist finds an earthworm and a pot shard next to each other at a dig site, which do they take back to the museum as evidence of intelligent designers?

 

[Elioenai26]

If an archaeologist finds an earthworm and a pot shard next to each other at a dig site, which do they take back to the museum as evidence of intelligent designers?

If an archaeologist was sent into the field with orders to bring back objects that were evidence of design and the archaeologist in question held to your belief in an unguided, purposeless, meaningless process of biological evolution by natural selection, then I assume he would take only the pottery piece back.

If the archaeologist held to my beliefs, I assume he would take both the worm and the pottery piece back as both being evidence of design.

If the archaeologist was a theistic evolutionist, he would bring both back as well.

I personally have no problem whatsoever in believing that we evolved from lower life forms, if that is where the evidence points. I believe that it is quite possible for that to be the case. Because I hold to this view, I am at perfect liberty to keep my views open to see where the evidence leads.

However, as one who adheres to I.D. theory, I do not believe that if we evolved, that the process was unguided, blind, purposeless, and by chance. If we did evolve, it was under the superintendence of an intelligent designer who set the whole process in motion by creating the universe in the first place.

I cannot dismiss complicated organs such as the brain, the heart, or the eye as being simply the results of some "process" acting upon matter, unguided, over a period of time.

A person can hold up a ten penny nail in front of my face all day long and try to argue that it is not designed, I will kindly dismiss them as one who is not worth entertaining. How much more will I kindly dismiss the person who argues that we humans are not designed?

We all observe changes within certain species over time. Adaptation etc. etc. This is undeniable. But to take this fact and use it to justify the view that all life is the result of some random, unguided, purposeless, mindless, natural process acting upon matter over time is simply not science. Its taking science and abusing it and couching it in technical jargon and rhetoric in order to give the appearance that from beginning to end the whole endeavor is a scientific one when actually it is nothing more than propaganda.

But there are dissenting voices making themselves heard now. Their numbers are increasing and I envision a time to come where Neo-Darwinism will be exposed for what it really is, wishful thinking masquerading as science and this is done by the same men and women who stand up and claim they are being "objective" and "unbiased" in their research.

One of the many good aspects of science is that I believe there will always be some men and women scientists who are actually concerned about finding and seeking truth, instead of finding what they want to find or taking bits and pieces of truth and building an elaborate story around said truths to suit their fancy.

And just to let you know, I personally think that if I were ever to present an argument to someone for the existence of God, it would be more along the lines of an argument from our observations of the fine-tuning of the universe itself. This argument I believe, is far more compelling than an argument centered on biological complexity. It is also not subject to objections from the Neo Darwinists because it has absolutely nothing to do with natural selection.

 

[pjnlsn]

Your post contains several points I will disagree with:

1. No where in any of my posts have I reasoned that because other things are designed, humans are designed too. So your opening statement is false.

2. If you are referring to inference of a designer from design as a principle, I am happy to inform you that you are wrong again. For I have never assumed said principle for the sake of it. All I have done is state that evidence of design is evidence of a designer. Surely you agree with me on this.

3. Using a nail as an example of a simple designed object and saying that if we assume a nailmaker made the nail then it is not irrational to assume someone or something designed the human body and its components is in no way illogical. Saying that it is illogical does not make it so.

4. You say that there are a great many things wrong with my post, you then summarize these "great many things" as being demonstrative of the fact that some people's thoughts are cluttered and disorganized on certain topics. But this summation here is quite vague. Whose thoughts are you referring to? Mine? If so, how does maintaining that evidence of design is evidence of a designer lead you to the conclusion that my thoughts are cluttered and disorganized? Surely you agree with me, and recognize this has been the point of my most recent posts here?

Now if you don't agree with the design inference principle, then that's ok too. But if you don't agree that evidence of design is evidence of a designer and want that to be more than just your opinion....then present an argument and substantiate it.

If you don't think that evidence of design is evidence of a designer, then you must demonstrate why.

Good luck...

It is not necessarily true that because an object exceeds some undescribed level of complexity, it was therefore the product of some, also completely undescribed, designer.