The flaws in Intelligent design

[Audie]

Did you get lost or just blind. Faith is simply faith. You can couple/label it with religious faith or what ever. Waiting on the bus has not a damn thing to do with "religious" faith. It has to do with faith in general. You have faith the bus will be on time but you don't know and can't guarantee it will be on time. You have faith it will be on time and your faith comes from the bus schedule, same as Christians faith come's from the Bible.
Faith is believing without knowing. Schedule or not, you cannot show the bus will be on time every day, yet you have faith it will.
Faith is believing without knowing.
If you want to continue your pointless objections, go take them up with the bus scheduler. I'm done wasting time with you.

So love is just love, no nuances, no degrees, no
dufferences in kind.

 

[dianaiad]

And back to equivocation fallacies.

With all due respect, we are not the ones doing the equivocating. You are committing a fallacy of composition, insisting that because religious faith is based upon evidence that you don't think is proper evidence...wait. You do the same thing with 'evidence,' backwards.

You are insisting that 'faith' has only the attributes that you believe is only used by theists...and you also believe that 'evidence' can only be objective.

Both things are like claiming that only Ford F150's can be vehicles.

Here's the problem you have with that. I have looked at seven different dictionaries to find the definition of "faith,' and the first definition is, in all of them: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Here's an interesting site for investigators, describing fifteen kinds of evidence...15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them in Investigations | i-Sight

Please note that each and every type is 'evidence' preceded by an adjective describing what sort of evidence it is. The evidence used by theists may not be objective evidence...but it fits into that list of fifteen types of evidence in a couple of places. Also note that this list is aimed at court cases, and even though the site lets us know that certain types of evidence are not admissible in court, they are still called 'evidence.'

So, the evidence theists use to base their beliefs upon may not be 'admissible' in a scientific environment, it's still evidence. YOU don't get to change the meanings of words to suit yourself SZ, and it seems a little bit of a waste of your time to accuse us of equivocation when we catch you at it.

 

[dianaiad]

Theist are the ones that claim a god is real. But they fail to provide objective evidence that a god exist.
As an Atheist that lack of objective evidence means that a god doesn't exist.

No, it means that they have found no evidence (that they accept as 'proper' evidence) that one exists. Which is, to be fair, what most atheists are careful to say. It is the "strong' (and usually the most vocal and pulpit pounding sort) atheists who claim that the lack of evidence that they like is proof that no god exists.

There is a rather large difference between "I see no evidence for a god" and "no god exists." The first is an observation. The second is a positive claim. Now me, I believe in God...and a specific version of Him, but I also do not attempt to say that 'God exists and I can prove it." Because, of course, I can't, using evidence that is purely objective and which the non-believer will accept. Religion doesn't work that way anyway.

Yes, I can, do, and have said to people "I believe this to be true, and you can too if you read, study and pray about it, and if you do that with a sincere heart, you will also come to believe this..." but I'm the first one to admit that subjective answers to prayer are not objective pieces of evidence. It is powerful and convincing, but not objective. I can't prove to you that God exists. You can only find that out for yourself.

The 'strong' atheist DOES make such a claim, however....and he finds himself committing the same 'crime' he accuses theists of; making a claim that he cannot prove objectively. I'm fine with challenging the claims of others...but i'm not fond of double standards.

 

[dianaiad]

So love is just love, no nuances, no degrees, no
dufferences in kind.

Love is just love, no nuances, no degrees, no differences in kind. For THAT, one must apply adjectives.

You know....romantic love, maternal love, brotherly/sisterly love, and so forth.

Just like "evidence," or even 'faith.'

 

[dianaiad]

The parts that are not a Gish of cut n paste, maybe.

If a person needs a lot of words, it it generally means they
dont really understand their topic.

Either that, or they like to play with words, know their subject too well and get into minutia, or aren't good writers.

I have had to edit and proofread too many papers written by too many scientific geniuses to think that knowledge of one's field makes one able to be succinct in explaining it. For crying out loud, look at some of MY meandering posts!

 

[Subduction Zone]

With all due respect, we are not the ones doing the equivocating. You are committing a fallacy of composition, insisting that because religious faith is based upon evidence that you don't think is proper evidence...wait. You do the same thing with 'evidence,' backwards.

You are insisting that 'faith' has only the attributes that you believe is only used by theists...and you also believe that 'evidence' can only be objective.

Both things are like claiming that only Ford F150's can be vehicles.

Here's the problem you have with that. I have looked at seven different dictionaries to find the definition of "faith,' and the first definition is, in all of them: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Here's an interesting site for investigators, describing fifteen kinds of evidence...15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them in Investigations | i-Sight

Please note that each and every type is 'evidence' preceded by an adjective describing what sorts of evidence it is. The evidence used by theists may not be objective evidence...but it fits into that list of fifteen types of evidence in a couple of places. Also note that this list is aimed at court cases, and even though the site lets us know that certain types of evidence are not admissible in court, they are still called 'evidence.'

So, the evidence theists use to base their beliefs upon may not be 'admissible' in a scientific environment, it's still evidence. YOU don't get to change the meanings of words to suit yourself SZ, and it seems a little bit of a waste of your time to accuse us of equivocation when we catch you at it.

What makes you think that your evidence is proper evidence? The problem with what you call evidence is that it justifies any religious belief. That is why it is not rational.

And the problem with "faith" it that people abuse that term. They realize that faith is not a valid reason for belief so they go through a series of equivocation fallacies and tu quoque and others to defend their beliefs.

If your beliefs are rational one should be able to explain how and why. I have yet to see a theist do that. And religious beliefs are not necessarily a bad thing. It is when the religious use those beliefs to excuse bad behavior.

One thing to not about "faith" is that it is not used as a reason to believe something if one has a legitimate reason for belief. That is why the bus stop example fails. I trust that the bus will come on time because it has a very good history of doing so (at least in my town, even though I drive)

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

No, it means that they have found no evidence (that they accept as 'proper' evidence) that one exists. Which is, to be fair, what most atheists are careful to say. It is the "strong' (and usually the most vocal and pulpit pounding sort) atheists who claim that the lack of evidence that they like is proof that no god exists.

There is a rather large difference between "I see no evidence for a god" and "no god exists." The first is an observation. The second is a positive claim. Now me, I believe in God...and a specific version of Him, but I also do not attempt to say that 'God exists and I can prove it." Because, of course, I can't, using evidence that is purely objective and which the non-believer will accept. Religion doesn't work that way anyway.

Yes, I can, do, and have said to people "I believe this to be true, and you can too if you read, study and pray about it, and if you do that with a sincere heart, you will also come to believe this..." but I'm the first one to admit that subjective answers to prayer are not objective pieces of evidence. It is powerful and convincing, but not objective. I can't prove to you that God exists. You can only find that out for yourself.

The 'strong' atheist DOES make such a claim, however....and he finds himself committing the same 'crime' he accuses theists of; making a claim that he cannot prove objectively. I'm fine with challenging the claims of others...but i'm not fond of double standards.

No objective evidence = no existence

 

[Subduction Zone]

No objective evidence = no existence

I would not go that far. No objective evidence = no rational belief. Something could exist, we may simply not have rational reasons to believe it. Russell's Teapot is such an object. Who knows, E.T.'s could have left a teapot in orbit somewhere around our Sun after they got done probing cows and lost traveling salesmen. There is an infinitesimally small chance of such an object existing. But without objective evidence it is not rational at all to believe in such an object.

 

[Polymath257]

No, it means that they have found no evidence (that they accept as 'proper' evidence) that one exists. Which is, to be fair, what most atheists are careful to say. It is the "strong' (and usually the most vocal and pulpit pounding sort) atheists who claim that the lack of evidence that they like is proof that no god exists.

There is a rather large difference between "I see no evidence for a god" and "no god exists." The first is an observation. The second is a positive claim. Now me, I believe in God...and a specific version of Him, but I also do not attempt to say that 'God exists and I can prove it." Because, of course, I can't, using evidence that is purely objective and which the non-believer will accept. Religion doesn't work that way anyway.

Yes, I can, do, and have said to people "I believe this to be true, and you can too if you read, study and pray about it, and if you do that with a sincere heart, you will also come to believe this..." but I'm the first one to admit that subjective answers to prayer are not objective pieces of evidence. It is powerful and convincing, but not objective. I can't prove to you that God exists. You can only find that out for yourself.

The 'strong' atheist DOES make such a claim, however....and he finds himself committing the same 'crime' he accuses theists of; making a claim that he cannot prove objectively. I'm fine with challenging the claims of others...but i'm not fond of double standards.

Well, the strong atheist position is that there is no evidence that shows a God exists and if God did exist there should be evidence showing that existence.

It is certainly true that a lack of evidence is not always evidence of the non-existence of something. But it *can* be the case that the lack of evidence *is* enough to justify a belief in the non-existence.

For example, I do not see an elephant in my room. I do not hear, smell, or otherwise detect and elephant in my room. I can conclude there is not an elephant in my room because if there were an elephant in my room, I would *definitely* be able to see, hear, or smell it. The absence of a detection is then evidence of non-existence.

So the question is whether a deity could be expected to have evidence of its existence. A strong atheist would likely say yes, it should. And then, the lack of detection does, in fact, give reason to a disbelief in existence.

Now, of course, an argument needs to be given to show that a deity would be expected to produce evidence of its existence. It is possible to make an argument from omnibenevolence, for example, that a *good* deity would make its existence clear if belief had significant bearing on how someone spends eternity. That, of course, uses the assumption that a God is all-good.

 

[Audie]

No objective evidence = no existence

Nonsense

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is it literally a cipher?

It has the features of a cipher. If you wanted to relate it to something that humans have created and used, a cipher would be the closest approximation.

Is it literally a code?

It is a cipher.

Also if its not literally a code, then why is it LIKE a code?

That is what research is all about. If we knew the origins, then we would not need to ask questions. Baseless attribution to an unseen cause is not answering the question.

, i read it. The first part of the article admits theres much thats not understood. The conclusion is more experiments need to be done. As far as the body goes, is beyond my comprehention.

An honest response, but one that asks the question 'If you do not understand what you are against, how can you be against it or form valid arguments against it?'. You appear to be just repeating cherry-picked points that agree with your belief and not bothering to learn anything. Or reiterating claims of others without understanding the basis of the claims or their validity.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is as childish as saying "I like cake".
I enjoy a lively debate with a well informed person,
and losing is as good as winning, except for my ego.

There is no quality in debate / discussion with someone
who just says things (makes things up), has no idea
what he is talking about, and cannot even tell that
they are completely outclassed.

I agree. Sometimes, unfortunately, they are the only game in town. It does become tiresome rather quickly to argue with a parrot, though.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You could have wrote it in about a third to half the words.

Then there would be no Gish Gallop. I notice he was able to squeeze in conflation of origins and evolution, along with the standard recitation of flawed probability claims, non sequiturs and followed it up with typical and, as usual, unfounded creationist arrogance. This guy is full service.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, they very different. For example one has "faith" in the bus because it has a published schedule and it is fairly reliable Hardly faith at all. Faith in one's child can vary wildly depending upon a parent's relationship to that child. One may know one's child extremely well or in the case of a father that has abandoned his child not at all. And I don't have that much experience with hookers, that seems to be a rather risky crapshoot to me.

If I understand this correctly, the claim is that waiting for a bus is the same thing as believing in God and that the claim of faith extends to cover them both.

If faith is believing without knowing or without evidence, I agree with that. But the example of the bus is a poor analogy, since a person that regularly rides the bus has knowledge of buses, bus routes, public transportation, their specific route, and their history using that bus and route. They do know something.

 

[dianaiad]

What makes you think that your evidence is proper evidence?

Define 'proper' evidence. Does that mean 'evidence that Subduction Zone approves of?"

The problem with what you call evidence is that it justifies any religious belief. That is why it is not rational.

Nothing justifies every religious belief. And it doesn't matter whether you think it is rational or not. It really doesn't matter whether you think something is rational...you don't get to decide the rationality of any evidence for anybody but yourself.

And the problem with "faith" it that people abuse that term. They realize that faith is not a valid reason for belief so they go through a series of equivocation fallacies and tu quoque and others to defend their beliefs.

You keep saying stuff like that, but you obviously do not understand the fallacies you refer to. I am not equivocating. You are. I haven't pulled a 'tu quoque' fallacy. Well, you haven't either, but the point is, you haven't shown me that you understand what 'tu quoque" means.

If your beliefs are rational one should be able to explain how and why. I have yet to see a theist do that. And religious beliefs are not necessarily a bad thing. It is when the religious use those beliefs to excuse bad behavior.

Moving the goal posts, SZ?

One thing to not about "faith" is that it is not used as a reason

Pay attention. 'Faith' is not the reason to believe. Faith is trust in someone or something...trust in one's beliefs. The reasons for those beliefs may or may not be objective, but they are certainly not 'faith' in and of themselves.

Not only that, even if one conflates 'faith' and 'belief,' (which you should not do), neither faith NOR belief are used as reasons for their own existence. Those reasons are always extraneous. You may not like those reasons. You may think that they are lousy evidence...or even 'not evidence' at all, but nobody simply decides to believe something because they believe it.

to believe something if one has a legitimate reason for belief.

Again; you don't get to decide whether a reason is 'legitimate' or not for anybody but yourself. You do NOT get to decide that, say, my reasons for believing in God are not legitimate and therefore I must stop believing.

That is why the bus stop example fails. I trust that the bus will come on time because it has a very good history of doing so (at least in my town, even though I drive)

A 'very good history' is nice. It raised the odds in your favor, but unless you can tell me that the bus is never late, has never, ever been late, and will never be late (and that is impossible...even in your well regulated town) then it's faith (trust) not knowledge, and you won't ever know that the bus you are waiting for will be on time until it HAS arrived on time. Then you won't know whether the next one will be on time until it has arrived, and so on down the timeline.

Anything less than absolute knowledge is....faith. Trust. Faith is a matter of what you think and feel, not a matter of facts or data.

 

[dianaiad]

No objective evidence = no existence

Lack of proof is NOT proof of lack.

Remember; until Mitchel, in 1783, nobody had even conceived of the idea of 'black holes...' and he was laughed at. Einstein predicted them...but there was no evidence, and there was no evidence for them, that WE saw and could measure, until somewhere around 1964.

Does that mean that they didn't exist until we could imagine them, or measure them, or 'see' them?

Would you have been correct had you, in, say, 1776, said that 'no evidence for something called a 'black hole' = they don't exist?

All that a lack of evidence means is....there is a lack of evidence.
At least, a lack of objective evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Define 'proper' evidence. Does that mean 'evidence that Subduction Zone approves of?"

No. Why do you always try to use false accusations? Evidence is reliable if it does not matter who observed it. As long as that person is reasonably honest. For example you would likely reject the "evidence" for Allah, or Shiva for the same reasons that believers in those faiths would reject yours. That is not reliable evidence.

Nothing justifies every religious belief. And it doesn't matter whether you think it is rational or not. It really doesn't matter whether you think something is rational...you don't get to decide the rationality of any evidence for anybody but yourself.

I disagree. One can have clear and logical standards for rational thought.

You keep saying stuff like that, but you obviously do not understand the fallacies you refer to. I am not equivocating. You are. I haven't pulled a 'tu quoque' fallacy. Well, you haven't either, but the point is, you haven't shown me that you understand what 'tu quoque" means.

Instead of denying the fallacy ask for more information.

Moving the goal posts, SZ?

Not even close. If one has to guess when applying a logical fallacy one is quite often wrong.

Pay attention. 'Faith' is not the reason to believe. Faith is trust in someone or something...trust in one's beliefs. The reasons for those beliefs may or may not be objective, but they are certainly not 'faith' in and of themselves.

Not only that, even if one conflates 'faith' and 'belief,' (which you should not do), neither faith NOR belief are used as reasons for their own existence. Those reasons are always extraneous. You may not like those reasons. You may think that they are lousy evidence...or even 'not evidence' at all, but nobody simply decides to believe something because they believe it.

Many theists use "faith" as evidence. And you do not appear to be using the same definition of faith as used in the Bible.

Again; you don't get to decide whether a reason is 'legitimate' or not for anybody but yourself. You do NOT get to decide that, say, my reasons for believing in God are not legitimate and therefore I must stop believing.

Sure I can. We all do every day. What matters is if one can justify those judgments or nit.

A 'very good history' is nice. It raised the odds in your favor, but unless you can tell me that the bus is never late, has never, ever been late, and will never be late (and that is impossible...even in your well regulated town) then it's faith (trust) not knowledge, and you won't ever know that the bus you are waiting for will be on time until it HAS arrived on time. Then you won't know whether the next one will be on time until it has arrived, and so on down the timeline.

Anything less than absolute knowledge is....faith. Trust. Faith is a matter of what you think and feel, not a matter of facts or data.

No, now you are using her another definition of faith. I simply do not go by your poor definitions. They all too often do lead to equivocation fallacies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lack of proof is NOT proof of lack.

Remember; until Mitchel, in 1783, nobody had even conceived of the idea of 'black holes...' and he was laughed at. Einstein predicted them...but there was no evidence, and there was no evidence for them, that WE saw and could measure, until somewhere around 1964.

Does that mean that they didn't exist until we could imagine them, or measure them, or 'see' them?

Would you have been correct had you, in, say, 1776, said that 'no evidence for something called a 'black hole' = they don't exist?

All that a lack of evidence means is....there is a lack of evidence.
At least, a lack of objective evidence.

Hey! We agree on that.

Well not quite. There are times that a lack of evidence is evidence of nonexistence, but this is not one of them.

 

[dianaiad]

Well, the strong atheist position is that there is no evidence that shows a God exists and if God did exist there should be evidence showing that existence.

Y'know, that's a rather arrogant statement to make. After all, to state that there should be evidence showing that existence, implying (or rather, outright stating) that such evidence would, of course, be accessible to humans right here and right now, and that this evidence would of course be utterly convincing to everybody, is problematic.

After all, as I wrote in a post just a few moments ago, black holes were imagined by someone in 178..6, was it? But it wasn't until Einstein showed up that there was any evidence at all for them (and then this evidence was highly controversial) and we didn't have actual objective evidence of their existence until 1964. ...and THAT was a fluke. I wonder what else is out there that is only predicted, without evidence, but actually exists?

God is certainly a more complicated concept/idea than black holes, the existence of which answers a lot of questions about the formation, life and death of stars. That there would be such things seems pretty obvious now. God, however? A very big subject, involving the creation of the universe and all....

and since the strong atheists I have come across wouldn't accept any evidence at all that would support the idea of God's existence, not even the direct appearance to them of God Himself to introduce Himself, I find it ironic that any of 'em claim that there is no evidence for one.

Well, there really isn't any, but these people wouldn't accept any if it did show up, any more than literal Biblical creationists accept any evidence for the age of the earth, the length of time it took to carve the Grand Canyon, or evolution. Just as illogical on both sides.

It is certainly true that a lack of evidence is not always evidence of the non-existence of something. But it *can* be the case that the lack of evidence *is* enough to justify a belief in the non-existence.

Of course; just like the lack of evidence for black holes for nearly 130 years justified the belief that they didn't exist.

The problem here is that strong atheists don't simply justify their lack of belief. They insist that there are no gods. Of any sort. That there not only isn't any evidence, there never will be any evidence, because there is no deity.

That is a positive claim, and the burden of proof is theirs.

.....and it is just as illogical for them to make that claim as it is for a theist to say 'there is a god and I can prove it."

For example, I do not see an elephant in my room. I do not hear, smell, or otherwise detect and elephant in my room. I can conclude there is not an elephant in my room because if there were an elephant in my room, I would *definitely* be able to see, hear, or smell it. The absence of a detection is then evidence of non-existence.

Oh, come on. deity is not an elephant.

Try this: I do not see any dark matter in my room. I do not hear, smell or other wise detect dark matter in my room. If there were any dark matter in my room, I would *definitely* be able to see, hear, or smell it. The absence of a detection is then evidence of non-existence.

The problem is, pretty much all scientists who deal with this issue figure that dark matter is all over the place, including your room; they don't think so because they have detected it (they haven't) but because, well, it 'must be' there in order for their equations to work.

But that might be something else entirely. Dark matter has been around as long as the universe, and we still have no objective proof that it exists, do we?

yet pretty much everybody figures it is, and they 'plug in' the idea every time they calculate something that would be incorrect without it.

So the question is whether a deity could be expected to have evidence of its existence. A strong atheist would likely say yes, it should. And then, the lack of detection does, in fact, give reason to a disbelief in existence.

Which is actually fine...just as it is fine to be a theist who says that there IS proof of His existence. Same/same, it seems to me. The problems only show up when either one of them makes that claim 'publicly' and expects others to take his/her word for it.

Now, of course, an argument needs to be given to show that a deity would be expected to produce evidence of its existence. It is possible to make an argument from omnibenevolence, for example, that a *good* deity would make its existence clear if belief had significant bearing on how someone spends eternity. That, of course, uses the assumption that a God is all-good.

I don't see how an omnibenevolent Being would HAVE to withold evidence for His existence, though I do see the evidence.

I also have to wonder about the definition of 'omnibenevolence' in the first place...most critics who go after that seem to think that being 'all good' means that God should make THEIR lives all gorgeous, RIGHT NOW.

I don't think that's what it means, any more than being good parents mean that children should have everything they want, as soon as they want it, to keep them from crying or throwing tantrums. Children raised that way tend to grow up with a very...slanted...view of the way the world works, and they end up very unhappy. If they don't end up in jail, that is. So how are parents who do that being 'good parents?"

 

[dianaiad]

Many theists use "faith" as evidence. And you do not appear to be using the same definition of faith as used in the Bible.

Goodness, SZ...I'm the one who quoted the Bible regarding the definition of faith used in it. You haven't bothered to support your claim.

Sure I can. We all do every day. What matters is if one can justify those judgments or nit.

So it really IS a matter of my having to justify my beliefs to you before I am allowed to believe. Gotcha.

No, now you are using her another definition of faith. I simply do not go by your poor definitions. They all too often do lead to equivocation fallacies.

Again. I am not the one equivocating. I have provided plenty of support for the definitions of 'faith' that I use. You haven't provided any at all except for your bald declarations of your own opinions, and SZ?

I'm sorry, but nobody died and made you God, or the Mirriam Webster Dictionary, or the Oxford dictionary. or any authoritative source except your own opinions.

It would be nice if you would actually support those, y'know. The way I have mine?