Can someone explain to me the assertion that a Designer requires a designer. This assertion it seems is always prompted by the statement that life requires a Designer? I think that this is simplistic reasoning that gets in the way of an honest searching analytical debate. a = b therefore b must equal c yeah if you want it to. There are a myriad explanations as to the origin of life and there are a myriad for the origin of God. Perhaps only one is correct for the origin of life and only one for God the two that are the truth don't have to be related as perceived in human logic terms ie if we were created by god then who created god. Therefore one of these myriad of explanations could be that biological life requires a designer but the designer does not require a designer. If life was spontaneous then perhaps life would just crop up all the time all over the place and biological reproduction would not be necessary. But it doesn't seem to happen that way. Something creates something else. Galactic dust clouds are the womb of stars. Something begets something else. You don't need a test-tube to scientifically test for that it is all around you. Something I don't understand is why evolutionist go apeshit when Creationists bring a Creator into the mix when all they are doing is exactly what evolutionists are doing which is observing facts and theorising around those facts.
Logically consistent theories of ID exist.
by hooberus 159 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Abaddon
Spectrum
Can someone explain to me the assertion that a Designer requires a designer. This assertion it seems is always prompted by the statement that life requires a Designer?
I would say that 'the designer requires a designer' is more correctly a response to the claim that 'complexity requires design, therefore complexity requires a designer'.
There are a myriad explanations as to the origin of life and there are a myriad for the origin of God.
'Explanation' means "to give the reason for or cause". The word 'explanation' doesn't give an insight into the validity of what is offered; a child can explain something like thunder as 'angels fighting', for example. If one accepts any explanation, then yes, there are a lot of explanations for a god's existence... including them springing from a cosmic egg, being eternal in nature, being formed from the blood or semen of another god... all of these are about as relaible as a belief in Santa Claus. I think you would be better to use either 'hypothesis' or 'theory'. 'Hypothesis' implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation 'Theory' implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth. By all means provide some theories as to the origin of a god, I don't think you will find there are a myriad of theories
Perhaps only one is correct for the origin of life and only one for God the two that are the truth don't have to be related as perceived in human logic terms ie if we were created by god then who created god. Therefore one of these myriad of explanations could be that biological life requires a designer but the designer does not require a designer.
This is known as special pleading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading. You are basically saying 'I say that two different rules apply' in order to allow yourself to maintain hoding to a belief or an argument even when you cannot prove that two different rules apply.
If life was spontaneous then perhaps life would just crop up all the time all over the place and biological reproduction would not be necessary.
No one makes this claim, if you think this even approaches characterising the claim regarding abiogenesis then please, do some research.
Something creates something else.
So who created god then? By your own words you refute your belief system (unless you use special pleading which is not a logically valid argument).
Something I don't understand is why evolutionist go apeshit when Creationists bring a Creator into the mix when all they are doing is exactly what evolutionists are doing which is observing facts and theorising around those facts.
Because there is no evidence for a Creator. When scientists come up with theories of the origin of life or the development of life they have to stick to the 'rules' of chemistry, physics, etc., and to the evidence available in living organsisms or the traces of dead ones. At this stage we can say we have very well-supported theories of evolution explaining the evidence of evolution around us. We have hypotheses regaring the origin of life, but the science is young so it being incomplete is no surprise. Someone can say 'I think the creator did it', and have no evidence or no idea of the 'rules' under which a creator might exist without having being created themselves. Without such evidence or rules theories of designers or theories of god are simply hypotheses, and as belief in gods has been around an awful long time the fact that man is no closer to a theory of god than 10,000 years ago is rather surprising and rather indicative of the idea of god being made up by primative man to explain stuff he didn;t understand around him. We now can explain much of what is around us and don't need to invoke god, magic or the paranormal to explain stuff. What happens now is if you try to use god or a designer to explain things is you end up with more unanswered questions than if you don't. If god was developed as an idea to explain the unexplainable, it would appear god might not be dead (nor ever could it be as it was just an idea), but is now simply redundant as it only creates more questions rather than answering them.
-
AuldSoul
Abaddon: Because there is no evidence for a Creator.
I have one easy question for you, Abaddon. Who labels reality?
From your answer, I will demonstrate why your statement here may very well be wrong. At least, I can logically demonstrate why you must allow the possibility of error in your assessment.
-
Abaddon
AuldSoul
If there is evidence of a Creator why not just provide it rather than trying to instigate (in a nice way I am not offended by) a discussion where one tries to prove the possibility of entity which I have not denied?
There's a difference between 'there is no evidence of a Creator' and 'there is no such thing as a Creator'.
All the best
-
AuldSoul
Abaddon,
I never said you stated anything other than what you stated. However, all evidence is what the entity labeling it says it is. So, I asked you, who labels the evidence?
Since we label all evidence (often through the mechanism of scientific inquiry), and since we invent new words to call the previously unknown, and since we only label that which we can observe and describe (even though we know our capacity for observation has limitations that reality extends well beyond), and since we never label anything "the Creator", "evidence of the Creator", or even "part of the Creator" ... it is entirely possible that mislabeled evidence of a Creator exists.
You said there is no evidence for a Creator, I said I could demonstrate that you must logically allow for the possibility. Can you logically explain any reason for insisting that mislabeled evidence for a Creator does not exist?
I only ask that you do so because, as you said, you would never attempt to rule out the possibility of the existence of a Creator. If there really is a Creator, then there obviously is some evidence of that reality, so the most likely true statement is that any evidence of a Creator we have discovered has been mislabeled, if we have discovered any.
That is not quite the same as making an unsubstantiable statement of fact that there is no evidence for a Creator.
-
Abaddon
AuldSoul
Well, I know what 'evidence' means. Obviously someone can semantically insist that something that a court-of-law or science journal would NOT consider as evidence is evidence, but that would not impress a court-of-law, a science journal, or me.
Changing the intended and usual definiton of words so one can insist there IS evidence is not as impressive as actually providing material that no one can despute as evidence.
Likewise, the logical fact there may be evidence undiscovered or mislabelled that supports 'god' in an unequivocal way means little unless this evidence can be found or corrrectly labelled. I could equally say there is ample evidence for my invisable purple kangaroo but that it hasn't been found yet or is mislabeled.
-
LittleToe
Good science always requires a null hypothesis, which is why the theory of Atheism cannot be tested.
Until the last particle and process is labelled, at the very least there will always be a requirement for a "God-of-the-gaps", however you label it.
Regarding complexity, throwing down "pick-up sticks" produces a complex pattern that doesn't require a complex creator. My experiences with lecturers demonstrates that a lecturer only needs to remain one day ahead of his students to remain a deity
-
AuldSoul
Abaddon,
I am shocked. You are apparently unaware that credible testimony (as determined by the testifier's character, not by their beliefs) is considered evidence in a court of law.
I grant you, such would not be considered evidence in a science journal but, as I already stated on numerous threads, the existence of a Creator cannot be proven by science. I even clearly fleshed out the reason why. {edit --->} It is because science doesn't seek to prove the existence of a Creator and is the sole entity responsible for labeling new discoveries.
{edit --->} Discovery is an interesting word: obviously, reality has always existed and will always exist, but properties of reality are not considered "scientifically discovered" until science discovers it, describes it, and labels it. They even change the labels, from time to time, so that Pluto is not a planet any longer. It is now a dwarf planet. Why? Because the label changed, reality did not.
However, your assessment of what a court of law considers evidence is very much in error. I do hope you will have the honor to adjust your statements according to fact.
{edit --->} A court of law is an interesting analogy. A person can be convicted of premeditated murder, without the prosecution ever showing a weapon or demonstrating a motive, on the strength of testimony alone. The defense has an obligation to try its best to destroy the perceived character of the prosecution's witnesses, because the character of the one testifying is what weights the credibility of their testimony. If a skank dope-fiend is on the stand as an accuser, the defense just got a nice present, wrapped up with a bright red bow on top. But if someone of nearly unassailable character, who is a proven person of honor and distinction in every respect the defense can uncover testifies against the accused, the defense is sunk.
{edit --->} QED, personal testimony is perfectly admissable evidence. The weight of testimony is ultimately determined by the (subjectively) perceived character of the one testifying. Why does the same not go for God? It does, in point of fact. Everywhere outside a science journal or laboratory, it does. Including in a court of law.
-
AuldSoul
Abaddon: I could equally say there is ample evidence for my invisable purple kangaroo but that it hasn't been found yet or is mislabeled.
Equally? Wow. I was unaware there was such a vast body of credible testimony regarding the invisible purple kangaroo. I would be very interested in reviewing your findings.
-
Abaddon
LittleToe
Good science always requires a null hypothesis, which is why the theory of Atheism cannot be tested.
To avoid using my own definiton I'll give Wiki's;
The null hypothesis is generally that which is presumed to be true initially...
... [it is] set up to be nullified or refuted in order to support an alternative hypothesis.
Under the above both theism and atheism can be 'presumed to be true initially' and both need to be 'nullified or refuted in order to support an alternative hypothesis'.
But, no, atheism can not be tested any more or less than apurplekangarooism can be tested.
However, I would point out that atheism was a conclusion reached in antiquity based upon an absence of evidence where evidence would be expected. Theism seems to have been a conclusion reached in antiquity to provide explanations where there were none. It was NEVER based on evidence of the type previously specified.
Obviously one can say expectations about a different domain or realm of reality can not be held to be logical when applied to the inhabitant of another domain or realm of reality. But in the absense of proof of some such realm one is simply invoking the possibility something that you can't prove exists in this realm or domain exists in a realm or domain that... you can't prove exists.
The fact I don't have patience for such ineffable-angel-line-dancing-on-pin-heads doesn't mean I am right, but it has to be said this sort of theism is very unparsimonious.
Anyhow, you're an atheist too, I just believe in one less god than you...
AuldSoul
I am shocked. You are apparently unaware that credible testimony (as determined by the testifier's character, not by their beliefs) is considered evidence in a court of law.
But is testimony that is unprovable and reliant upon unproven claims we know do not work in everyday life considered credible even if it comes from a credible person? If Rowan Williams said he saw a Smurf running down the aisle of Westminster Abbey, would a court-of-law use this as a basis of convicting someone? Would the Pope's insistence that if a woman weighed less than duck she was a Witch be taken as credible testimony?
Not on you nelly.
I grant you, such would not be considered evidence in a science journal but, as I already stated on numerous threads, the existence of a Creator cannot be proven by science.
Stated is not equal to proven. You state (without any evidence) that god is unprobvable. You cannot provide ONE example of something that exists but is unprovable. But of course what you're doing isn't special pleading...
It is because science doesn't seek to prove the existence of a Creator and is the sole entity responsible for labeling new discoveries.
Ah, so it is the fault of 'science' and presumably 'atheists' that god hasn't been proven to exist. Nah... that's a cop out. The responsibility of proving the invisable purple kangaroo is mine. The fact god has never, ever, not once, been proven to anyone OTHER than on a subjective internalised basis is something theists just have to get over.
If I blame science as it 'doesn't seek to prove the existence of a invisable purple kangaroo and is the sole entity responsible for labeling new discoveries' I am failing to be responsible for my own beliefs.
However, your assessment of what a court of law considers evidence is very much in error. I do hope you will have the honor to adjust your statements according to fact.
Nope, your analysis failed to include a credible witness testifying the uncredible.
A court of law is an interesting analogy. A person can be convicted of premeditated murder, without the prosecution ever showing a weapon or demonstrating a motive, on the strength of testimony alone.
Yes, and very often such convictions are overturned a 'un-safe', as it turns out the testimony was in error or knowingly false. There might be very good reason t e s t i are the first five letters of testimony and the medical term for balls...
You also miss out the fact that at least the court would require a dead BODY or proof thereof, i.e. evidence of something having occured to link to the testimony. And where is your body?
But if someone of nearly unassailable character, who is a proven person of honor and distinction in every respect the defense can uncover testifies against the accused, the defense is sunk.
If the testimony is credible!! You are almost saying ALL testimony by credible witnesses results in a conviction and this is not true.
But then as all you have to support the opinion you favour IS testimony, is it not surprising you would lose sight of the weakness the ONLY form of evidence you have.
Equally ? Wow. I was unaware there was such a vast body of credible testimony regarding the invisible purple kangaroo. I would be very interested in reviewing your findings.
Actually based upon your own assertion that credible testimony alone (no matter how uncredible) is sufficient for a conviction in a court of law, if I am a credible witness I should (according to you) be believed.
Of course I would not be, as everyone knows there is no such thing as purple invisable kangaroos. The claim I made would be uncredible.
Obviously believers in god out-number believers in the purple invisable kangaroo, but the REASONS people don't believe in purple invisable kngaroos are the same as the reasons people don't believe in god.
Since when did uncredible evidence by a lot of people make the evidence credible? If the entire congregation of Westminster Abbey saw the Smurf, would the reality of what they saw be any more belivable?
No, of course not.