Where do Proponents Of Intelligent Design Propose the Designer Came From?

[viole]

Why does luck have to mean "that someone takes advantage of it"??

I don't know. I think that being lucky is a good thing.

But if it is not relevant, then you will have no problems to swap your sentence with "either it is intelligence or unluck".

Correct?

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

If it is not Intelligence, then it must be luck.

False dichotomy.

 

[McBell]

You not knowing does not mean someone else does not. That smacks of arrogance

Really?
You "know" how the universe began?
Prove it.

And no,"GodDidIt" does not work.

Arrogance?
Is it not arrogant to claim you know something you do not?

 

[leibowde84]

like what?



cobblers! static/eternal, steady state, big crunch, were all 'in the math' also- it's not hard to make any speculation 'fit the math' when you are unrestrained by any direct observational evidence to make it do so. Why would anyone make up a theory that didn't fit the math?

Each atheist theory only inferred the next by their each being debunked in turn. The multiverse was only adopted when big crunch was debunked by observation like the others.
An invisible infinite probability machine was always destined to be the last resort- entirely beyond the inconvenience of investigation and hence the goalposts have been moved off the scientific pitch altogether.



I acknowledge that I have beliefs to separate, that there is no default explanation. do you?

But the only evidence went entirely against every atheist prediction, the universe was NOT eternal, NOT steady, NOT cyclical, the absolute most we can tell is that it did in fact begin with that specific creation event Hoyle called 'religious pseudoscience', and it remains inexplicable by any observable natural process.

Isn't this just basing your argument on the fact that scientific understanding is still miniscule? The power of science is the willingness to change. Saying that scientific theories have been improved upon seems to be an endorsement for science, as true ignorance is thinking that one knows the absolute truth.

 

[Robert.Evans]

False dichotomy.

Explain. Give me a third, a forth

 

[Robert.Evans]

Really?
You "know" how the universe began?
Prove it.

And no,"GodDidIt" does not work.

Arrogance?
Is it not arrogant to claim you know something you do not?

You do not have to "prove" something for it to be true.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You not knowing does not mean someone else does not. That smacks of arrogance

Claiming that you know something when nobody knows is what smacks of arrogance to me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You do not have to "prove" something for it to be true.

Then how did you go about determining that it is true?

 

[McBell]

You do not have to "prove" something for it to be true.

Merely claiming it is true does not make it true.

The fact is you do not "know".
You merely "believe".

 

[McBell]

Explain. Give me a third, a forth

this version of the universe could be one in a line of hundreds or even millions that came before it.

Like i said, false dichotomy.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Merely claiming it is true does not make it true.

The fact is you do not "know".
You merely "believe".

You are looking from the point of view of a non-believer. The fact is, (if we look at it from the believers point of view) if there is a God, then you do "know"... you just can't prove it to others. I know that probably annoys the hell out of you, and you will not accept it as an answer, because if you do, you have no argument.

 

[Robert.Evans]

this version of the universe could be one in a line of hundreds or even millions that came before it.


Like i said, false dichotomy.

Didn't look at the vid.
Like I say, if no intelligence is involved, then it is luck, whatever it is, it has to be....unless you can give me something that slots in between intelligence and luck. So far you have not done so

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Isn't this just basing your argument on the fact that scientific understanding is still miniscule? The power of science is the willingness to change. Saying that scientific theories have been improved upon seems to be an endorsement for science, as true ignorance is thinking that one knows the absolute truth.

I'm talking about atheist theories like steady state, big crunch, multiverse, m theory etc, rather than scientific ones like Lemaitre's primeval atom, which is actually backed up by some empirical evidence, observation, experiment- rather than mere academically fashionable implications and hypothetical 'math'

The atheist theories didn't just have to change all their predictions- they hit a brick wall of reality and wandered off the scientific field a while ago now.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I'm talking about atheist theories like steady state, big crunch, multiverse, m theory etc, rather than scientific ones like Lemaitre's primeval atom, which is actually backed up by some empirical evidence, observation, experiment- rather than mere academically fashionable implications and hypothetical 'math'

The atheist theories didn't just have to change all their predictions- they hit a brick wall of reality and wandered off the scientific field a while ago now.

Too bad those aren't atheist theories or theist theories. They are simply theories that were wrong. I find it also hilarious that so many people believe the big bang is an atheist theory as it has implications and totally disproves the concept of young earth creationism.

Its easy for you to pick a few failed theories, slap on the title of atheist, then mindlessly repeat the one theory you know was originally theorized by a theist. Give us a few more examples so we can make a trend. Also explain how god played a role in those theories. So far you haven't actually provided any evidence for what makes a theory an atheist theory or a theist theory.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm talking about atheist theories like steady state, big crunch, multiverse, m theory etc, rather than scientific ones like Lemaitre's primeval atom, which is actually backed up by some empirical evidence, observation, experiment- rather than mere academically fashionable implications and hypothetical 'math'

The atheist theories didn't just have to change all their predictions- they hit a brick wall of reality and wandered off the scientific field a while ago now.

Those aren't scientific theories that you mentioned. They are unproven hypotheses, which have not been substantiated through experimentation and making predictions. And, why do you call them "atheist theories"? None of them speak to belief in God or gods in any way.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Too bad those aren't atheist theories or theist theories. They are simply theories that were wrong. I find it also hilarious that so many people believe the big bang is an atheist theory as it has implications and totally disproves the concept of young earth creationism.

Its easy for you to pick a few failed theories, slap on the title of atheist, then mindlessly repeat the one theory you know was originally theorized by a theist. Give us a few more examples so we can make a trend. Also explain how god played a role in those theories. So far you haven't actually provided any evidence for what makes a theory an atheist theory or a theist theory.

atheist theories were the ones, as above, presented by atheists explicitly for their atheist implications. Can't get much more atheisty than that!

The primeval atom was not theistic or atheistic, it was scientific, Lemaitre went out of his way to distance his personal beliefs from his work, as scientists ideally should.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Those aren't scientific theories that you mentioned. They are unproven hypotheses, which have not been substantiated through experimentation and making predictions. And, why do you call them "atheist theories"? None of them speak to belief in God or gods in any way.

Again you could have debated that with Hoyle or Hawking, they were very explicit about their theories making God redundant.

Yes Lemaitre was a skeptic of atheism, but he went out of his way to dismiss the very theistic implication of the primeval atom that atheists themselves complained of.

those atheist theories of course were routinely referred to as scientific theories, I agree they are not. semantics maybe what we otherwise call them- I prefer the term debunked atheist creation myths!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

atheist theories were the ones, as above, presented by atheists explicitly for their atheist implications. Can't get much more atheisty than that!

The primeval atom was not theistic or atheistic, it was scientific, Lemaitre went out of his way to distance his personal beliefs from his work, as scientists ideally should.

False. Atheist theories are whatever theories you feel can be used to provide arguments against atheism.

No scientific theory is atheistic or theistic. Some are wrong. Some are correct. Some are a strange twist of both.

 

[leibowde84]

Again you could have debated that with Hoyle or Hawking, they were very explicit about their theories making God redundant.

Yes Lemaitre was a skeptic of atheism, but he went out of his way to dismiss the very theistic implication of the primeval atom that atheists themselves complained of.

those atheist theories of course were routinely referred to as scientific theories, I agree they are not. semantics maybe what we otherwise call them- I prefer the term debunked atheist creation myths!

I'm confused. Are you saying that they are "atheist theories" merely because they were thought up by people who didn't believe in God or gods? Because, if that is the case, it is an extremely misleading classification.

Also, can you provide support for your claim that they were referred to by their creators as "scientific theories" (not just "theories", as that term has a very different meaning)? Because, I have been looking for a while now, and it seems to be referred to as either a scientific hypothesis or a non-scientific theory. I can't find anywhere that it is referred to as a "scientific theory" apart from lay articles and websites.

 

[Noa]

You are looking from the point of view of a non-believer. The fact is, (if we look at it from the believers point of view) if there is a God, then you do "know"... you just can't prove it to others. I know that probably annoys the hell out of you, and you will not accept it as an answer, because if you do, you have no argument.

This is not true of all believers. There are plenty of religious people who intentionally avoid the term 'know'.