The flaws in Intelligent design

[Bear Wild]

Our universe came into existence through . . . mating? Who or what mated with whom or what to then give birth to our universe?

Personally I believe our universe has always existed. As for mating I guess a god and goddess could have mated with their offspring being the universe. Interesting idea and in keeping with the male and female aspect of our world. But my stance is not on origin of the universe but how life developed on earth. No evidence showing intelligent design necessary.

 

[Audie]

My claim is faith is believing without knowing. Some say "without evidence" but without evidence, you don't know(hence without knowing).
Some others brought up the hooker and bus insinuating faith has different levels, where I claimed it doesn't but has different labels. There are no different levels of not knowing or without evidence ( either you know or you don't and either you have evidence or you don't). I stick with my claim that faith is believing without knowing.

Please, I do not do "insinuating".



Dictionary result for insinuate

1. suggest or hint (something bad or reprehensible) in an indirect and unpleasant way.

No such things was done re buses or hookers by me
or anyone else here.

Also- if as appears to be the case, you cannot see a distinction
between the "level" of faith in something you know for a near-
certainty, based on a wide range of strong evidence both
theoretical and practical (like the bus will come, or that
you best not touch a hot stove), and,
"Faith" in something that is entirely without any physical
evidence nor any theoretical basis, meeting in fact every
single test to which one could submit something to, to
qualify it for non existent-

then I would say you may be entirely immune to nuance
or subtlety, and should really drop this, rather than trying
to get others to be like you.

 

[Bear Wild]

Moving the goalposts there. I think you are the only person I've ever come across that has tried the 'he wasn't really talking about black holes' argument.





Oh, you folks wouldn't accept that, either.




The logical position is neutral. Not having an opinion one way or the other regarding the existence of a deity. Now I'm with you in regard to someone who claims to be able to prove the existence of a deity with specific attributes....

But that's not quite the same thing.

But you can call me a sceptic, in that since nobody can prove that there is NOT a god anywhere around, I'm not going to come down on the side of 'there ain't no such critter...er, creator...'

Can you prove to me that there is no god, of any sort, anywhere?

Nobody can not prove there is a creator or god that is true. This is in the realm of belief. The problem is not about whether or not there is a god, but rather that there is no evidence to show that life came about by intelligent design. All that exists can be explained by natural causes. One could take a pantheist view and say the universe is god and operates as through natural forces but this leaves evolution theory intact without an intelligent designer. The mathematical models do not show intelligent design necessary. You can believe whatever you want but the development of life on earth is explained without the need of an intelligent designer and there is no evidence where an intelligent designer has altered the genetic material during the course of evolution.

 

[Bear Wild]

My claim is faith is believing without knowing. Some say "without evidence" but without evidence, you don't know(hence without knowing).
Some others brought up the hooker and bus insinuating faith has different levels, where I claimed it doesn't but has different labels. There are no different levels of not knowing or without evidence ( either you know or you don't and either you have evidence or you don't). I stick with my claim that faith is believing without knowing.

Thus those who have faith in Thor do so without knowing that Thor exists correct?

 

[metis]

Natural selection? How could Nature select for anything when there was nothing to select from in the first place?

"Survival of the fittest". Doesn't always work out that way, but the odds are in that favor.

 

[We Never Know]

Please, I do not do "insinuating".



Dictionary result for insinuate

1. suggest or hint (something bad or reprehensible) in an indirect and unpleasant way.

No such things was done re buses or hookers by me
or anyone else here.

Also- if as appears to be the case, you cannot see a distinction
between the "level" of faith in something you know for a near-
certainty, based on a wide range of strong evidence both
theoretical and practical (like the bus will come, or that
you best not touch a hot stove), and,
"Faith" in something that is entirely without any physical
evidence nor any theoretical basis, meeting in fact every
single test to which one could submit something to, to
qualify it for non existent-

then I would say you may be entirely immune to nuance
or subtlety, and should really drop this, rather than trying
to get others to be like you.

Why be dishonest. You brought up about having faith the prostitute doesn't have aids. I don't recall the who brought up the bus. I think maybe subduction zone.

 

[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.

Hmmm. Are you sure you didn't bring up the hooker? SMH

 

[Audie]

Why be dishonest. You brought up about having faith the prostitute doesn't have aids. I don't recall the who brought up the bus. I think maybe subduction zone.

Why indeed. So quit with the "insinuate" already.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thus those who have faith in Thor do so without knowing that Thor exists correct?

You don't know Thor. He so does to exist. All the Avengers are real.

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe God is so powerful he doesn't actually have to exist to create things......

 

[dianaiad]

No, of course not. And neither can I prove there are no elves anywhere. But, in the absence of evidence for them, the default is to not believe in them.

Why?

I mean, I would say that the 'default' position would be...I don't see any evidence for the sort of elves claimed to exist by anybody, but I'm not going to claim that there aren't any elves of any sort anywhere. I just don't see 'em....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can you prove to me that there is no god, of any sort, anywhere?

Can you prove that there is no invisible 7-ton rock blocking your lane when driving on the highway? No?
Then why don't you slam your breaks out of fear of smashing into it? Or do you perhaps assume that no such rocks are blocking your way - eventhough you can't prove such rocks aren't there?

Can you prove that there is no undetectable beast about to eat you? No? Then why aren't you living in constant fear of being eaten? Do you perhaps assume that no such beast is standing next to you?


The answer here, is that the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim of existance.

It's upto the person claiming that the invisble rock exists, to demonstrate it.
It's upto the person claiming that the undetectable beast exists, to demonstrate it.

Just like it is upto the person claiming a god exists, to demonstrate it.

It is literally a logical impossibility to prove a certain thing does not exist - especially if such thing is defined in unfalsifiable ways.

You should really start to think about the validity of your reasoning process here....
Because honestly, when you start saying things like "can you prove that a god does NOT exist" as if it is any kind of arrgument in support of your position - you are only harming your case.

It's kind of a dead giveaway that you got nothing.
It's of the exact same caliber as saying "can you prove that there is no invisible rock blocking your way on the highway?"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why?

For the same reason that you don't slam your breaks when driving on the highway, in fear of smashing into an invisible 7-ton rock blocking your lane.

You can't prove such rock isn't there.
Yet, you don't slam your breaks.
This means that you ASSUME that there IS NO SUCH ROCK.

Again: it's the null hypothesis.

Non-existence is assumed (for all practical intents and purposes) until existence is demonstrated.
It's just how it works rationally.

YOU operate like this for EVERY thing that could exist, but can't be shown to exist.
Invisible rocks blocking your way, undetectable beasts that might eat you,...

For all practical intents and purposes, you ASSUME these aren't real.
Yet, you can't show they aren't real.

I mean, I would say that the 'default' position would be...I don't see any evidence for the sort of elves claimed to exist by anybody, but I'm not going to claim that there aren't any elves of any sort anywhere. I just don't see 'em....

Which is just what he said, but in other words.
It means that you answer "no" to the question "do you believe these elves are real?"

It doesn't mean that you'll answer "yes" to the question "do you believe that they are NOT real?".
It doesn't mean that you'll claim that they are not real.

It just means that you won't be accepting the claim that they are real, as factually correct.
And in practice, that translates into assuming they aren't real for all practical intents and purposes.


I can't claim to KNOW that there aren't any invisble rocks blocking my lane.
But nevertheless, I won't be slamming my breaks in fear of smashing into them.

So for practical purposes, I drive on as if no such rocks are there.

You live your life as if no elves exist.
Do you KNOW they don't? No.

Do I KNOW no god exists? No.
But for practical purposes, I live as if no such god exists.
The alternative would be to live my life as if ALL gods (and elves, and invisble rocks and undetectable beasts and.....) ARE real. Which would be non-sensical, obviously.





Just wondering: am I getting through to you in any way? Do the things I've said here make sense to you?

 

[Polymath257]

Why?

I mean, I would say that the 'default' position would be...I don't see any evidence for the sort of elves claimed to exist by anybody, but I'm not going to claim that there aren't any elves of any sort anywhere. I just don't see 'em....

Exactly. You lack a belief in them. Lacking a belief in God *is* atheism. Saying outright that God does not exist is *strong* atheism.

 

[dianaiad]

Can you prove that there is no invisible 7-ton rock blocking your lane when driving on the highway? No?
Then why don't you slam your breaks out of fear of smashing into it? Or do you perhaps assume that no such rocks are blocking your way - eventhough you can't prove such rocks aren't there?

Can you prove that there is no undetectable beast about to eat you? No? Then why aren't you living in constant fear of being eaten? Do you perhaps assume that no such beast is standing next to you?


The answer here, is that the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim of existance.

It's upto the person claiming that the invisble rock exists, to demonstrate it.
It's upto the person claiming that the undetectable beast exists, to demonstrate it.

Just like it is upto the person claiming a god exists, to demonstrate it.

It is literally a logical impossibility to prove a certain thing does not exist - especially if such thing is defined in unfalsifiable ways.

You should really start to think about the validity of your reasoning process here....
Because honestly, when you start saying things like "can you prove that a god does NOT exist" as if it is any kind of arrgument in support of your position - you are only harming your case.

It's kind of a dead giveaway that you got nothing.
It's of the exact same caliber as saying "can you prove that there is no invisible rock blocking your way on the highway?"

Ah, but I don't make a claim that God exists. I believe He does, but I've also been very clear that I can't prove that empirically; one must find out for him/herself whether there is one or not. So I"m not making the positive claim.

those who say 'there is no God' ARE doing so, however. Their inability to prove that does not prove my beliefs true...after all, there are many versions of 'god' out there. If an inability to prove that NO God exists doesn't prove all those others to be true, how can it prove mine to be?

Don't charge me with positions I don't hold. I don't have any problems at all with the idea "I see no evidence of a God," any more than I would have a quarrel with 'I see no evidence of an invisible seven ton rock in the road."

The problem with your example (especially with the big rock...I'm Californian, remember?) is that while one can certainly 'see no evidence' of that very big rock in the road, one should be very careful driving the PCH....because it is not only possible, but happens frequently, that Very Big Rocks can suddenly appear on the road in front of you...or on top of you...if you aren't very careful and observant, and sometimes even if you are.

Just sayin'.

The thing is, m'friend, I'm not arguing FOR there being a God. I'm arguing AGAINST that specific subset of atheist who make the 'positive' claim that there is no God.

It's logical to say "I see no evidence for God, so I'm going to live my life as if there were none."
It is not logical to say 'there is no God," because that is exactly as unprovable a statement as "there is a God and I can prove it."

 

[Jollybear]

I said it is like a cipher. Not that it functions in the way a person uses a cipher.

Ok, so its like a cipher. What IS it though in a literal sense? What IS it, not what is it LIKE?

It might be a good idea. He is a mathematician and probably can give me far more insight on the subject than someone that just makes claims without evidence.

What is evidence to you?

Believing in God does not mean that I believe every claim of every believer. Crazy people can believe in God too, should I accept everything they say?

Im not a crazy person. And my claim of ID in the religious community is quite popular. Are all those people crazy?

This is just another passive aggressive attack on my beliefs that has no relevance to the point of discussion.

Oh yes it does......you believe God created the universe and life, yet you argue like you dont believe that. So, yes, it is relavent. You also believe Jesus did miracles and rose from the dead too. Or was all that metaphor?

If it was incomprehensible to YOU, then how do you know it is BS? It was very comprehensible to me. By your definition, it is the truth?

The truth is in the introduction and the conclusion. A body is just details of the introduction and the conclusions.

But the way that body was is not my style of readibility. Im very childlike, so, thats the kinda reading i need.

But, hey, you said you could comprehend the body. Ok, break it down for me, whats it saying?

Is it my fault of the fault of the authors of that paper that you have chosen to reject and ridicule things outside of your understanding?

No, its not your fault, its there fault because they wrote it. Its there fault i dont understand them. So, that means they need to talk in layman language or street language.

How is supplying you with the scientific work on why DNA is not a language supposed to bolster my ego?

No, it dont bolster your ego, it bolsters there ego because they wrote it. They used a style that gives an appearence of professionalism without truly knowing much.

That is incomprehensible, so it must not be true.

Its still true. Theres two kinds of incomprehention. Theres incomprehention of the truth and this is caused by a few different things. It could be caused by a bias blocking the mind from conprehending. I think this is called cognitive dissonance. Its also caused by stupidity sometimes, but not always.

As fare as comprehending a falsehood. Its IMPOSSIBLE to comprehend a falsehood because its....well....false

The paper was not about the origin of DNA. It was about whether DNA is a language, so why would I make a wild claim conflating the issue? Is creating a straw man argument what you consider professional too? You must.

Ok, well break down the body because i dont get it.

The intro and conclusion say they dont know.

The paper provides evidence to indicate that the way DNA functions is like a cipher. Your arguments are made up and have no relevance.

Is like a cipher, well, ciphers also hold implications of intelligence.

ID has no validity. I am glad you understand that.

No, i understand that IT HAS validity. It has just as much validity as unguided forces having done it. And in my view, has more validity then that.

 

[dianaiad]

Exactly. You lack a belief in them. Lacking a belief in God *is* atheism. Saying outright that God does not exist is *strong* atheism.

I have never, in all my nearly seventy years, been able to raise one eyebrow. It has always been an ambition of mine, to learn how to do that...very useful, that ability. But I never could. Consider this a virtual eyebrow raise, though....

strong atheism is still atheism. just with an added adjective.

I agree with you, btw....and I have explicitly said so more than once on this thread. My argument isn't with 'atheism.' per se, just the 'strong' atheists who actually make that claim and expect the rest of us to bow to it.

I mean, really: It is true that I acknowledge my inability to prove to YOU that God exists. However, I do believe in Him myself, so why would any of the strong atheist types figure that their opinion, without any more prove that no God exists than I do that my particular version of Him does, should cause me to instantly change my mind and be bop over to their side here?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ah, but I don't make a claim that God exists. I believe He does

Believing is claiming. Claiming is believing.
"I believe god exists", includes the claim "god exists".

Can't have one without the other.
The question "what justifies your belief?" is synonymous with "what evidence do you have to support that claim?".

, but I've also been very clear that I can't prove that empirically

That's neat.
But that's the same as saying that you have no rational justification for your belief.

And as the Hitch so famously said: "what is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".

; one must find out for him/herself whether there is one or not

Which is impossible to do, if there is no evidence.
YOU yourself didn't do that, because if you did, you would be able to justify your belief. But you can't. You just believe it. Just.... because.

You could also "just" believe that an undetectable monster is about to eat you.
So why don't you?

So I"m not making the positive claim.

False. As I said: "i believe god exists", necessarily includes the positive claim that a god exists.

those who say 'there is no God' ARE doing so, however.

I agree.

Remind me again who is claiming that?

Their inability to prove that does not prove my beliefs true...after all, there are many versions of 'god' out there. If an inability to prove that NO God exists doesn't prove all those others to be true, how can it prove mine to be?

Falsely claiming that people claim that "no god exists", while they aren't, isn't exactly productive to discussion either.

Don't charge me with positions I don't hold.

That's quite ironic. It seems to me that you are the only one here who is doing exactly that, by charging atheists with the position that they claim that no gods exist, which is just not true.

You, however ARE claiming a god exists, as explained earlier.
"i believe god exists" necessarily and literally includes the claim that god exists.

I don't have any problems at all with the idea "I see no evidence of a God," any more than I would have a quarrel with 'I see no evidence of an invisible seven ton rock in the road."

Great. Do you also understand that your belief in an unsupported god, is the equivalent of believing that such an invisble rock on the road exists?

The problem with your example (especially with the big rock...I'm Californian, remember?) is that while one can certainly 'see no evidence' of that very big rock in the road, one should be very careful driving the PCH....because it is not only possible, but happens frequently, that Very Big Rocks can suddenly appear on the road in front of you...or on top of you...if you aren't very careful and observant, and sometimes even if you are.

That's is not at all a problem for my example. You're actually making my point for me.

Those rocks are quite visible. There is good reason to be carefull. There is lots of evidence of these visible rocks falling down from visible mountains.
Now contrast that with my invisible rocks falling from this invisible mountain:

The thing is, m'friend, I'm not arguing FOR there being a God. I'm arguing AGAINST that specific subset of atheist who make the 'positive' claim that there is no God.

None of which seem to be part of this discussion. Weird.

It's logical to say "I see no evidence for God, so I'm going to live my life as if there were none."

Indeed.
Just like it is logical to say "I see no evidence of rocks blocking my way, so I'm not slamming my breaks".

But it IS illogical to say "I see no evidence of rocks blocking my way, but I'm slamming my breaks anyway because I believe the invisible rocks are blocking my way".

Just like it is illogcal to say "I see no evidence of gods, but I believe gods exist anyway".

It is not logical to say 'there is no God," because that is exactly as unprovable a statement as "there is a God and I can prove it."

I agree that saying "there is no god" as a truth claim, is something that one cannot justify.
Just like you can't justify saying "there are no invisible rocks on the road".

HOWEVER, the complete lack of evidence to the opposite, still make that position more rational then saying that there ARE gods / invisible rocks.

Because you will off course not have evidence of things that don't exist.
If invisible rocks don't exist, then there won't be any evidence in support of invisible rocks.
So the data of reality is consistent with that view.

To say that invisible rocks DO exist, there could be evidence (being carefull not say SHOULD).
But, it might be that we just haven't found it yet, or that the evidence is not at our disposal.

Either way, making truth claims about things not in evidence - never a rational position.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have never, in all my nearly seventy years, been able to raise one eyebrow. It has always been an ambition of mine, to learn how to do that...very useful, that ability. But I never could. Consider this a virtual eyebrow raise, though....

strong atheism is still atheism. just with an added adjective.

I agree with you, btw....and I have explicitly said so more than once on this thread. My argument isn't with 'atheism.' per se, just the 'strong' atheists who actually make that claim and expect the rest of us to bow to it.

I mean, really: It is true that I acknowledge my inability to prove to YOU that God exists. However, I do believe in Him myself, so why would any of the strong atheist types figure that their opinion, without any more prove that no God exists than I do that my particular version of Him does, should cause me to instantly change my mind and be bop over to their side here?

Just an honest and sincere question now....

Would you say that any of the following do NOT exist:
- santa claus
- leprechauns
- extra-dimensional unicorns
- invisible rocks on the road
- undetectable 7-headed dragons about to eat you
- centaurs


Or in short, is there ANYTHING of which you say that it does NOT exist?

If you can find examples of things that you would say /agree that they do NOT exist, then how do you justify such a truth claim, and how would it be different from a strong atheist making the claim that gods do not exist?



small disclaimer: fun discussion I really don't mean bad. I think it's fun to explore this topic and these questions. If I sound disrespectfull (and I know I can word things that come accross that way) - it's really not meant like that.

 

[Maximilian]

Natural selection started as the first simple dna elements formed and started to create self contained organism. This is the study of abiogenesis which I have already given evidence for. After the simple organisms appeared natural selection shaped the DNA code further for more and more complex organisms thus evolution. No intelligent designer needed. The two people you used were mathematicians ignoring biology and coming up with meaningless mathematical models based on poor assumptions proven wrong.

Abiogenesis was conclusively proven false a long, long time ago, sorry . . .