Logically consistent theories of ID exist. (page 3)

ackack

AuldSoul: indeed. If I were going to believe in a deity, a God of the gaps seems like a pretty insane way to go about it.

ackack

funkyderek

"An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life."

Well done, hooberus. You managed to formulate - or at least find - a sentence that is not self-contradictory. Well done indeed. I understand it's a big step for you. However, there is more to science than constructing sentences that are not inherently nonsensical. The assertion you made above is of course, not a theory even in the weak colloquial sense of the world. It's just an assertion. Here's another one:

"A tomato is necessary for the origin of life from non-life."

(Obviously, this is an eternal tomato, not one that had an origin.)

Less whimsical:

"A universe is necessary for the origin of life from non-life."

Or:

"An intelligent designer is unnecessary for the origin of life from non-life."

Or:

"An intelligent designer must have an origin."

Or:

"A stupid designer with a copy of the book Creating Life For Dummies is necessary for the origin of life from non-life."

And so on. For your statement to have any merit, you need to show how something can exist that has no origin. No such entity is known to exist or has ever been observed. You also still need to show that life requires an intelligent designer, which creationists have always been unable to do.

ballistic

Oh, let me have a go...

The flying spaghetti monster created all life, obviously.

hooberus

Leolaia said:

Since we are talking only within the realm of logic, I have to wonder that if the Designer TM can be eternal tho having intelligence, organization, and what not, why cannot the universe and life itself (with all its wonderful "designs") be similarly eternal? After all, if we leave out the possibility of eternity, your posited Designer would just be the last in a potentially infinite series of Designers, as you put it. If the Designer need not be designed "themself" because of having eternal existence, why cannot the universe be similarly undesigned (tho having all the apperance of design that the Designer "themself" would have) if it eternally exists as well? As I recall, Aristotle or one of the other Greek philosophers pondered this question.

The ID theory/statement that I posted does not in itself exclude the possibility of an eternal universe with no designer. It was short statement dealing specifically with the issue of the origin of life from non-life.

hooberus

kid-A said:

As it stands, this statement would not preclude the necessity for an infinite regression of "designers" if you do indeed consider your deity a "life-form", regardless of whether that being is "biological" or not.

Since it there is nothing in the statement that requires the designer to himself have an origin from non-life, the statement does not therefore require the designer to also have their own designer, ad infinitum.

hooberus

funkyderek said:

"An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life."
Well done, hooberus. You managed to formulate - or at least find - a sentence that is not self-contradictory. Well done indeed. I understand it's a big step for you.

Before moving on to other points are you in agreement that the ID statement requires: 1.) No nesessary infinite regression of designers and 2.) No necessary self-refutation ?

funkyderek

hooberus:

Before moving on to other points are you in agreement that the ID statement requires: 1.) No nesessary infinite regression of designers

From a strictly logical viewpoint, that's correct. You've declared the original designer to have characteristics that excludes him from the group "life" as defined in the sentence. Examining it in any detail leads to a whole host of problems, but in and of itself, it avoids the problem of regression.

and 2.) No necessary self-refutation ?

Agreed. As I wrote above, the sentence is internally consistent - as are all the ones I provided in response. Do you agree?

Abaddon

Ah, hooberus... I won't bother asking you for your promised rebuttal of dendrochronolgy which (unless you can rebutt it) proves quite catagorically that the Flood was not global, and thus proves your key presupposition (the accuracy and literal nature of the Bible) is false.

You will simply make one of a variety of excuses, normally trying to blame me for your inability to rebutt critical evidence against your beliefs.

Having said that let us see what aspect of evolutionary science you're tilting at today; although you have no compettive theory and cannot even defend the hypothesis you do have, it doesn't stop your continual attack on one type of scientist (whilst benefiting from all the other types of scientist)...

Oh... you can't be bothered to argue your point but instead refer us to a book; are you incapable of putting the argument in your own words, lazy, or just trolling creationist-ID claptrap with no genine interest in a discussion?

Well, I'll be just a lazy; ReMine didn't understand how the software he was using worked and limited the population size to 6. There's more faults, here's some URL's;

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep99.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB121.html

Don't bother quoting ReMines rebuttal; he ignores the error he made regaring the software and does not even respond to it being pointed out in criticism. Is your failure to respond to criticism of your beliefs based upon trying to emulate such a person? Maybe he figures he'll stop selling those books if he admits they are fataly flawed... funny how unprofessional behaviour and profit so often feature (as I have pointed out in previous discussion with you) in the lives of those people you choose to support to defend your beliefs.

As for your attempt to make this a discussion about logical consistency;

"An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life." The Biotic Message page. 40

Are you serious? You need to prove the statement before anything else. Just like you need to rebutt dendrochronology's refutation of Biblical accuracy before going on with your slavish devotion to Creationistic opinion.

You also have to prove your own statement;

It should be noted that the above theory deals specifically with life that has an origin from non-life, and thus there is nothing in the above that would also exclude the existence of an eternally existing designer (which of course would have no origin from non-life).

There is a difference between TYPING STUFF and making a decent argument.

I know you will grab at whatever straws you can in shoring up your belief sturcture but don't you think you need to address the faults in your belief structure that are pointed out to you in EVERY thread you come up with Creationist-ID claims?

At the very most you are phrasing the watchmaker argument in a way that suits you, and of course the wachmaker argument refutes itself, as does ID.

If complex things need designers, and designers are complex, designers need designers reducio ad absurdio...

But this has all been pointed out to your already...

Doesn't it strike you as strange your beliefs can only sound vaugely sensible if you ignore sound refutations or create very narrow hypothetical statements that unravel the minute someone looks at them?

Abaddon

I really despise it when this happens;

Creationist; "Oh silly modern science! See the bronze-age goat herd was right!"

Evolutionist; "Don't talk rot (then lots of facts)."

Creationist; Argues from one side of mouth complexity needs design, argues from the other the designer of complexity is subject to special laws and doesn't need a designer, although they cannot prove this.

Evolutionist; "Don't talk rot (then lots of facts)."

Creationist; ...

Yup, once again we have a thread started by a Creationist left to dangle as they can no longer make themselves look good online even in their own estimation.

Boring!!

hooberus

funkyderek said:

hooberus:
Before moving on to other points are you in agreement that the ID statement requires: 1.) No nesessary infinite regression of designers
From a strictly logical viewpoint, that's correct. You've declared the original designer to have characteristics that excludes him from the group "life" as defined in the sentence. Examining it in any detail leads to a whole host of problems, but in and of itself, it avoids the problem of regression.
and 2.) No necessary self-refutation ?
Agreed. As I wrote above, the sentence is internally consistent - as are all the ones I provided in response. Do you agree?

I am glad that we are in agreement on at least the logical consistency issue of the particular statement that I posted.

As far as your point that: "You've declared the original designer to have characteristics that excludes him from the group "life" as defined in the sentence." I would instead word it that the ID statement given does not also require designers to have all of the same charatersistics as the type of life in question (such as having an origin from non-life).

Regarding the issue of internal consistency of the sentences you provided- I have seen no necessary logical inconsistency problem (though of course I don't necessarily agree with them).

Furthermore, I also agree with your previous point that ". . . there is more to science than constructing sentences that are not inherently nonsensical" (In fact I may later go into other issues besides the issue of logical consistency). However, for now I hope to deal specifically with the logical consistency/non-inconsistency issue.

Since we are in agreement that the previous simple ID theory and/or statement does not necessarily lead to logical inconsistency (such as being self-refuting, etc.), I will therefore proceed to post an additional longer ID statement that I feel is not inconsistent either.

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

Share this