The flaws in Intelligent design

[Audie]

My point is this: atheists like to say we religious folk have faith/belief and they dont.

Thats not true, they do have belief, just in something else.

Thats not a word game, its just pointing out an obvious fact.

Join forces with me in refuting all these posts because i dont have enough time to respond to all them.

That is baloney. You wont find anyone saying they do not
have "faith" of some sort, in something.

Your point that all have faith is approx. as deep as saying
we all have emotions.

Word games it still is, though. Please look
up and learn about equivocation. Then cease!!!

I am not the only one exasperated with your doing it.

 

[Bear Wild]

What I see is someone expressing their religious beliefs, making it abundantly clear that they are just that....beliefs, and you guys challenging her to empirically support those beliefs (as you just did above).

Seems a little annoying.

Not trying to be annoying and am sorry you see it that way. The fact that the theory of evolution is required to find evidence or proof for every aspect of its theory and yet intelligent design requires no evidence only what one wants to believe can also be a little annoying. So I apologize if I have offended anyone in my stance on intelligent design and you accept my apology.

 

[Jollybear]

That is baloney. You wont find anyone saying they do not
have "faith" of some sort, in something.

Your point that all have faith is approx. as deep as saying
we all have emotions.

Word games it still is, though. Please look
up and learn about equivocation. Then cease!!!

I am not the only one exasperated with your doing it.

Actually, i have heard atheists here and there act like they dont have faith. Sure have. Granted, not all will do that. You havent done it. Thats good.

 

[Audie]

Actually, i have heard atheists here and there act like they dont have faith. Sure have. Granted, not all will do that. You havent done it. Thats good.

Ah, you think some act like. A little diff from
"what they all say".

IOW-
Baloney

 

[Polymath257]

My point is this: atheists like to say we religious folk have faith/belief and they dont.

Thats not true, they do have belief, just in something else.

Thats not a word game, its just pointing out an obvious fact.

Join forces with me in refuting all these posts because i dont have enough time to respond to all them.

There is a big difference in religious faith (the belief that something unknowable and inscrutable is causing the events around us) and confidence in the scientific method (skeptical approach, using testable hypotheses and relying on observation to determine truth).

The 'faith' in naturalism is mostly a procedural stance that we should try to understand based on what we know rather than based on what we can't know.

 

[Audie]

There is a big difference in religious faith (the belief that something unknowable and inscrutable is causing the events around us) and confidence in the scientific method (skeptical approach, using testable hypotheses and relying on observation to determine truth).

The 'faith' in naturalism is mostly a procedural stance that we should try to understand based on what we know rather than based on what we can't know.

I am hoping he will study to cure himself
of the grim Vice of Equivocation. It confuses
him and annoys us.

You would sort of think the Faithful would be
the ones rallying to fight that particular scourge.

To them "faith" is a highest virtue, beloved of god.

Why sully their sacred virtue by comparing it to faith
that the drug dealer wont poison you with fake meth?

 

[tas8831]

Actually, i have heard atheists here and there act like they dont have faith. Sure have. Granted, not all will do that. You havent done it. Thats good.

Faith in something, as such, is not capital F Faith like that of the religionoist.

That should be obvious.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

I have found that it always goes about the same way in these debates. One particular guy on another forum is the classic example to me. Wasting no time in our interaction, he basically limited his whole argument to little more than two statements repeated over and over.

1. There is no evidence that God exists.

2. Every life form and every fossil is evidence of evolution.

And he really did save us both some time and effort in reaching the conclusion that neither of us would be convinving the other of anything. He did it without throwing in personal insults, too. I appreciated that.

I bet you failed to give objective evidence of a god existing.
All life and fossils does prove evolution.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Hmmn.

I guess the situation, for me at least, is that (and I find this difficult to explain so others can understand me; my fault) I figure that God, in creating the universe. made the 'laws' by which it works. Of course everything would then work by those laws/rules, and since they are the ones God created, there is certainly no need for Him to break them.

So, if He designed evolution as a process, why would He go in and stir the pot? It's already doing what He wants it to do. So is every other process by which the universe works. To imagine that He has to come in and tweak things is to imagine that He was poor designer. IMO, of course.

Now WE, operating according and within those rules, aren't going to see beyond them to a designer; why should we? if the rules work as they should (and they should, if God designed them) then we aren't going to see anything outside or beyond them. Our view, as theists, would be the same view non-believers have; all we see are the rules/laws/processes. I think that if we SEE God's touch in them, it would only be because they broke somewhere.

This means that we won't ever see objective, scientific, proof that god is behind universe creation.

We can, however, through prayer and such, receive personal and subjective evidence that He is. Individually. I can't prove His existence to you...and you can't prove His non-existence to me.

but both of us have to approach the study of the universe the same way, with the same methods, and we will see precisely the same things when we do. You...or at least atheists...will see in this examination of the way the rules work evidence that God is not required.

Well, He's not; if He were, He would have been an extremely bad Designer of things. IMO, of course, and my opinion isn't worth much.

You would think a designer (god) would leave objective evidence for us to find.

At least you can admit all you have is subjective evidence for a designer/god.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Actually, i have heard atheists here and there act like they dont have faith. Sure have. Granted, not all will do that. You havent done it. Thats good.

Theist have faith and believe without objective evidence for a god.

 

[Jose Fly]

Not trying to be annoying and am sorry you see it that way.

It was just that @dianaiad kept saying over and over and over that what she was expressing was her religious beliefs, and that she wasn't trying to say they were scientifically-based, supported, or valid. And you and SZ kept responding with challenges for her to provide evidence for her beliefs and justify them on empirical grounds.

It kinda looked to me like you were just spoiling for an argument no matter what she said.

The fact that the theory of evolution is required to find evidence or proof for every aspect of its theory and yet intelligent design requires no evidence only what one wants to believe can also be a little annoying.

Well in this case (where the person is making it clear that their belief in ID creationism is exactly that...a religious belief), I personally don't see that as problematic.

I've always taken sort of a "live and let live" approach when it comes to personal religious beliefs.

So I apologize if I have offended anyone in my stance on intelligent design and you accept my apology.

I certainly appreciate that, but there's really no need to apologize to me. I'm just a bystander.

 

[Bear Wild]

It was just that @dianaiad kept saying over and over and over that what she was expressing was her religious beliefs, and that she wasn't trying to say they were scientifically-based, supported, or valid. And you and SZ kept responding with challenges for her to provide evidence for her beliefs and justify them on empirical grounds.

It kinda looked to me like you were just spoiling for an argument no matter what she said.


Well in this case (where the person is making it clear that their belief in ID creationism is exactly that...a religious belief), I personally don't see that as problematic.

I've always taken sort of a "live and let live" approach when it comes to personal religious beliefs.


I certainly appreciate that, but there's really no need to apologize to me. I'm just a bystander.

I cannot disagree with you. Sometimes in our desire to defend our on beliefs we can misunderstand or misinterpret the other persons opinion. Thanks for the input.

 

[We Never Know]

You would think a designer (god) would leave objective evidence for us to find.

At least you can admit all you have is subjective evidence for a designer/god.

While I partly agree with your post, growing up in a religious area the way I understood it was the whole faith part is believing in what you can't see. Faith= God wants you to seek him with your heart, not your eyes.

 

[Audie]

While I partly agree with your post, growing up in a religious area the way I understood it was the whole faith part is believing in what you can't see. Faith= God wants you to seek him with your heart, not your eyes.

Maybe. What if "faith" is tacked on, as a great virtue
and all, as a way to deal with the people who are
alert enough to question this stuff they are told
about "god'.

Seems obvious enough, likewise the powerful
carrot and stick thing of heaven or hell, righteous
or unrighteous, protected v vulnerable,

 

[We Never Know]

Maybe. What if "faith" is tacked on, as a great virtue
and all, as a way to deal with the people who are
alert enough to question this stuff they are told
about "god'.

Seems obvious enough, likewise the powerful
carrot and stick thing of heaven or hell, righteous
or unrighteous, protected v vulnerable,

Raising children takes faith. It's having faith and believing what you can't see. We hope they grow up to be great adults, go far in life, succeed, etc. We can't yet see that but we hope and have faith they will.

 

[Audie]

Raising children takes faith. It's having faith and believing what you can't see. We hope they grow up to be great adults, go far in life, succeed, etc. We can't yet see that but we hope and have faith they will.

Just tell me you are not making Faith in god
the same sort of faith as, say, that the hooker
does not have HIV.

The equivocation thing on "faith" is really too tiresome.

Oh, and other than the use of the word "faith" your
response seems to have nothing to do with what I wrote.

 

[We Never Know]

Just tell me you are not making Faith in god
the same sort of faith as, say, that the hooker
does not have HIV.

The equivocation thing on "faith" is really too tiresome.

Oh, and other than the use of the word "faith" your
response seems to have nothing to do with what I wrote.

Faith is faith. I didn't know there were different kinds of faith. Faith is believing without knowing.

 

[Polymath257]

Raising children takes faith. It's having faith and believing what you can't see. We hope they grow up to be great adults, go far in life, succeed, etc. We can't yet see that but we hope and have faith they will.

Hmmm....I would say I have *hope* that my daughter will be a good person, etc.

I do NOT have faith in such. In fact, I work to do as much as possible to achieve that goal.

I can't say I even *believe* one way or the other. That would take having more information and ability to determine the future than I have.

 

[Polymath257]

Faith is faith. I didn't know there were different kinds of faith. Faith is believing without knowing.

Well, there is a HUGE difference between religious faith and the ordinary faith that everyday processes will continue to work.

On a philosophical level, we cannot know that the sun will continue to exist to tomorrow, that the Earth will continue to rotate, etc. But, because of our experience and our understanding of scientific laws, we can have a great deal of *confidence* in those.

That is quite different than what happens with religious faith. In that, we have to 'just believe', often in spite of evidence (as opposed to because of evidence) and without any other *reason* to believe.

So, no, faith is NOT always the same.

 

[We Never Know]

Well, there is a HUGE difference between religious faith and the ordinary faith that everyday processes will continue to work.

On a philosophical level, we cannot know that the sun will continue to exist to tomorrow, that the Earth will continue to rotate, etc. But, because of our experience and our understanding of scientific laws, we can have a great deal of *confidence* in those.

That is quite different than what happens with religious faith. In that, we have to 'just believe', often in spite of evidence (as opposed to because of evidence) and without any other *reason* to believe.

So, no, faith is NOT always the same.

Faith is believing without knowing. Coupling it with religious or anything else doesn't change what faith is.