"There is No Creator"

[In_Deepthought]

So having sex with children is sufficient grounds for dismissing what they say on other things out of hand. Good to know.

Yes because if his morels are so low if fact so low they are subterranean then how do you think his morels are when telling you what he calls the "truth" lying is very simple especially for someone who finds it easy to have sex with a child which I would suggest is the most immoral thing anyone could do

 

[savagewind]

I'm sorry.

 

[PureX]

That's a strange argument. You seem to be saying the equivalent of, that in order to comprehend that it is raining, for example, which also requires intelligence, that the rain must have been deliberately created by an intelligent designer.

I clearly stated that an expression of intelligence does not necessarily require a deliberate intent.

The claim is that there is no reason to assume that blind processes are incapable of generating the observed level of complexity, and that the possibility cannot be eliminated by fiat.

I guess you're going to have to clarify what a "blind process" is.

You must be referring to how things appear to you. There is much more doubt out there than that which you acknowledge. I have considerable doubt that nature was intelligently designed.

Not "was intelligently designed"; it is intelligent design. It is not necessarily efficient design, nor is it necessarily purposeful design beyond achieving the fact of existence, itself (though that could certainly be considered a sufficient purpose).Existence is the result of an elaborate complex of inter-related processes so sophisticated that we humans are not intelligent enough to comprehend them all. Existence expresses more intelligence than we humans possess, and that intelligence is being expressed as "design". Those "laws" that govern the ways that energy can and cannot express itself are "designing" the existential result. So the expression of intelligence and design are not in question. What is in question is cognitive intent. Is all this intelligence and design the result of cognitive intent?

We don't know.

 

[PureX]

Maybe not necessarily, but sometimes it definitely is.
I believe one of the fundamental reasons for ID/Creationism is to support the agenda of religionists. Refusing to see the science means some ancient book is magically true, so it must be from God, and God says No Gay Marriage, so therefore legislation. That sort of thing.
Tom

I agree. But most Christians do not interpret the Bible so literally that they believe in creationism as historical fact and reject the evidence of science. So although there is a percentage of them practicing such willful ignorance in pursuit of the sickness of religious authoritarianism, there are still a great many Christians that are not. Creationism is a problem because it's the expression of willful ignorance in pursuit of absolute authoritarianism. The concept of intelligent design, however, without the creationist subtext, is an exceptionally reasonable observation and worthy of further investigation. So that I think we need to be careful not to "throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater" in both cases: religious Christianity and ID.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Here's the basic problem. Existence is the result of order, which is being generated by the inherent limitations in the way energy can and cannot express itself. So that existence, itself, begs the question of the origin of all this 'energy', and of the 'rules' that are limiting it's expression.

Whether the fundamental layer of existence needs an "origin" at all is debatable. In order for there to be "anything", there have to be some immutable parts in play. A layer of activity for which there is simply no explanation that is going to be forthcoming.

There is no logical way for us to conceive of it occurring without some sort of agency. And because the result of this agency is ordered, and has become so highly complex, it's very difficult for us to logically presume that this agency is/was unintelligent, and/or purposeless.

Case in point, this "agency" you are worried about, and the intelligence/purposefulness you seem to want to ascribe it. This is never going to amount to anything more than passing the buck. You've only added an arbitrary level of abstraction to the mix, somewhere within or beyond there must be these immutable parts. When does it make sense to stop positing further levels? Does that next level not also require some sort of origin and agency? If not, why not? Who decides what does not have to have been created or intelligently crafted?

The fundamental origin of existence as we experience it may be a profound mystery to us, but the nature of existence, itself, clearly indicates the questions that need to be addressed.

And there are those sincerely searching for the answers to address them. If some day we find an intelligence of some form behind it all, so be it... but doesn't that, itself, simply raise even more questions? It would, were we ever to get there. I assure you it would.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Please discuss.

You can argue forever that the universe was or wasn't created because there's absolutely no evidence for or against either proposition. The Big Bang is an informatin firewall for any information from "before". We don't even know is there is a "before".

 

[JustWondering]

Please discuss.

It irks me when creationists don't see how illogical their argument is. They claim the universe needs a creator to exist because the universe is too complex to simply exist on it's own. However, when you counter with the LOGICAL argument that the creator being more complex then humans (who by the creationists own logic needs a creator) should also need a creator, their minds shut down. At that point they start spouting nonsense like, it exists outside the universe therefore different rules. Their own logic implies things can exist without a creator. Of course, creationists did not become creationists through logic in the first place. What can you do?

 

[savagewind]

It irks me when creationists don't see how illogical their argument is. They claim the universe needs a creator to exist because the universe is too complex to simply exist on it's own. However, when you counter with the LOGICAL argument that the creator being more complex then humans (who by the creationists own logic needs a creator) should also need a creator, their minds shut down. At that point they start spouting nonsense like, it exists outside the universe therefore different rules. Their own logic implies things can exist without a creator. Of course, creationists did not become creationists through logic in the first place. What can you do?

HOW do you know "that the creator [is] more complex than humans"? You don't.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

I disagree with him on this matter, although I think he has a pretty well-formulated opinion. Also, I find it ridiculous how threads are derailed around here to the point in which they turn into chaos and no staff members intervene. Isn't that against the rules?

 

[savagewind]

I disagree with him on this matter, although I think he has a pretty well-formulated opinion. Also, I find it ridiculous how threads are derailed around here to the point in which they turn into chaos and no staff members intervene. Isn't that against the rules?

It wasn't me first

 

[savagewind]

Like, I read every word, when I read a post, most of the time.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I guess you're going to have to clarify what a "blind process" is.

An ateleological one - one without intent or purpose. An apple falling is a blind process. An apple thrown is not.

Existence expresses more intelligence than we humans possess

I don't see it.

So the expression of intelligence and design are not in question.

Yes, they are. I question them, as do hundreds of millions if not billions of others. There is a whole world full of naturalists.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The concept of intelligent design, however, without the creationist subtext, is an exceptionally reasonable observation and worthy of further investigation.

I see intelligent design and creationism as synonymous whenever intelligent design implies a supernatural designer and creator, unless you think that the designer and creator were different agents.

 

[PureX]

An ateleological one - one without intent or purpose. An apple falling is a blind process. An apple thrown is not.

So how do you determine that natural process is purposeless? That the apple exists at all is the result of a whole complex of interrelated processes that when followed, were designed to produce specific results. And in this instance, that specific result was the apple.

So how have you determined that in spite of processes that are designed to produces specific results, that these results were not deliberate, or intentional? Why is the pull of gravity on the apple presumed not to be an intentional result of an elaborate design process, yet the human's desire to pick up and throw the apple is presumed to be the result of an unnaturally deliberate intent? By what logical mechanism do you make this determination?

I don't see it.

Well, if you can't "see" natural design, I am very curious what is it that you think scientists have been observing and studying all these years?

Yes, they are. I question them, as do hundreds of millions if not billions of others. There is a whole world full of naturalists.

Refusing to acknowledge the obvious is not a "question". It is a bias. Millions of people (mostly atheists) maintain a blinding bias against natural design, for sure, but it's not because they "question" the observation of natural design, it's because they refuse to acknowledge it for what it is. But I would ask them the same question that I ask you: what is it that they imagine scientists are observing and investigating if not the endless intricacies of natural design?

 

[PureX]

I see intelligent design and creationism as synonymous whenever intelligent design implies a supernatural designer and creator, unless you think that the designer and creator were different agents.

I think that natural design, and the intelligence it embodies, is obvious and observable. It is what the practice of science is intended to help us explore and understand. While the "designer" and the "designer's intent", if such exists, is not obvious and directly observable. And is not a question that the scientific process can help us determine and understand. At least not so far. So I think as we learn about the design, but not about the possible designer, we need to remain humble and open-minded. Because we are still a very long way from understanding the whole of this mystery.

Biblical creationism asserted as a reality is a lie. It is a deliberate lie being told and bought into by people who want to assert their religious texts and the mythology within it as an absolute and unquestionable authority on truth, that they can then use to dominate and subjugate everyone else. It should be rejected and exposed for exactly the fraud that it is. But as we do so, we should remember that natural design, and the intelligence that it embodies, is our reality. And if this does imply some sort of "designer", and the possibility of intent, then so be it. Because for us to deny this simply because we don't like some religious liars using it to their advantage, would make us just as willfully dishonest as they are.

 

[leibowde84]

You really should read up on OSHO, completely true.

He never said that OSHO wasn't a child molester. He was pointing out, correctly, that his being a child molester does not in any way discount his argument here. It isn't related at all. You are using a logical fallacy.

 

[leibowde84]

Oh Brother, troll much!!

I think you should look in the mirror on this one. You claim that OSHO is a child molester and provide an extremely biased source. Can you provide any actual evidence that OSHO is a child molester? I'm not denying that he is, but as of yet, you haven't provided any evidence of it.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Yes because if his morels are so low if fact so low they are subterranean then how do you think his morels are when telling you what he calls the "truth" lying is very simple especially for someone who finds it easy to have sex with a child which I would suggest is the most immoral thing anyone could do

With such low writing skills you must also have low reasoning skills, right?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I disagree with him on this matter, although I think he has a pretty well-formulated opinion. Also, I find it ridiculous how threads are derailed around here to the point in which they turn into chaos and no staff members intervene. Isn't that against the rules?

I think you'll find that the "mods" are fond of interpreting the rules subjectively.

 

[PureX]

Whether the fundamental layer of existence needs an "origin" at all is debatable. In order for there to be "anything", there have to be some immutable parts in play. A layer of activity for which there is simply no explanation that is going to be forthcoming.

All this shows us is that there is a profound limitation in human cognition. Not that is it is an inevitable or eternal limitation, however.

Case in point, this "agency" you are worried about, and the intelligence/purposefulness you seem to want to ascribe it.

I am not "worried" about it, nor am I ascribing purpose to anything. I am merely posing the obvious question, and pointing out the obvious implication from our perspective.

This is never going to amount to anything more than passing the buck.

I don't see how you could possibly know this, as the future is no more foreseeable to you than to anyone else.

You've only added an arbitrary level of abstraction to the mix, somewhere within or beyond there must be these immutable parts. When does it make sense to stop positing further levels?

When we humans stop being curious, and inquisitive?

Does that next level not also require some sort of origin and agency? If not, why not? Who decides what does not have to have been created or intelligently crafted?

I think you're missing the actual question, here. Which is at what level DOES agency stop? And how?