Intelligent Design

by Delta20 234 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Pole

  ellderwho,
  

  Pole: Also you don't have any proof so you make up a situation in which there is one and try to discredit funkyderek for not accepting non-existing proof. This is a pathetic line of reasoning. Admit it.

  Elder: You lost me here.

  I'm not sure how I misrepresented your position, but if I did, could you explain it to me?

  Pole, Derek how would you account for the laws of logic?

  I can only speak for myself. For me it's all about being honest about the method of "knowing things" (a methodology). The problem I have with most people giving "logical" or "scientific" evidence of the existence of God is that they tend to be methodological opportunists. When it suits their needs they accept different bits and pieces of mutually exclusive methodologies.

  As it has been shown a number of times on this thread, the Intelligent Design thing is a point in case. On the one hand it depends heavily on the assertion that complex entities require an even more complex creator. This of course doesn't appply to the creator himself who is free from this necessity. Why? Because he's unlike anything we have ever seen/experienced in the Universe. How do we know he is different? We don't, but once we believe it's simple to imagine he must be different. Now, what has happened to the natural necessity that the Intelligent Design theory seems to stem from? Why did it get replaced with a metaphysical necessity? It's a mix-up of methodologies. You can prove anything using the deus ex machina construct.

  Pole
• 

  frenchbabyface

  the most evident fact to me is that an Intelligent Designer, would have been smarter than that, I mean to not let us in such difficult evironement and get a more perfectible based mentality to protect his whole creation ...
• 

  LittleToe

  FBF:But does that make "Him" more complex?
• 

  frenchbabyface

  I mean ... what we can conclude on what we can see (of course) is that some things works together and some things don't ... the nature / scientists / and even professionnels and passionates like garderners do try some stuffs (from logic or hasard) and it works or not ... and thing can evolve from different bases alone or mixed together (a new bread for instance) ... that's just how the nature is (human being include) in every way (physically and mentally even any intelligence is able to connect to an idea or not to get a point and it evolve or not from that - is or will the idea be the best we don't know, just because good can come out of bad and bad can come out of good - see how medecine works a poison can save you from some sickness for instance).

  the intelligent designer concept doesn't stand anyway without intelligent material at first (it have to be something even as tiny as possible or as simple as possible able to intelligently evolve ...of course !) ... so again why not only intelligent material ? (and that's something we can see - its the way things works, just because they can work together ... good or bad for any of the present creatures also only one could distroy us all and everything - that still wouldn't mean it would be god but a new bread born from intelligent material)
• 

  frenchbabyface

  FBF:But does that make "Him" more complex?

  but from what would come complexity = intelligent material (what else it have to be something) you can't be all from nothing OR you have to admit that nothing can be all so again, why not just intelligent material ...
• 

  funkyderek

  ellderwho:

  Pole, Derek how would you account for the laws of logic?

  Logic is a method for determining whether an argument or piece of reasoning is likely to be correct. It's impossible to argue usefully without using some form of logic.

  See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

  Formal logic uses syllogisms, which consist of a major premise, a minor premise and a claim.

  For example:

  All elephants are grey. (Major premise)

  Jumbo is an elephant. (Minor premise)

  Therefore Jumbo is grey. (Claim or conclusion).

  This is a valid syllogism, in that the conclusion follows from the premises. However, it is not necessarily true. If it is not true that all elephants are grey, then it is not necessarily true that Jumbo is grey, even if he is an elephant. Similarly, if Jumbo is not an elephant, then, he not only has an inappropriate name, but he may not be grey.

  Consider the following example:

  All elephants are grey.

  Jumbo is grey.

  Therefore Jumbo is an elephant.

  While this may be true, it is invalid as the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Not all grey things are elephants.

  Another valid syllogism is:

  All elephants are blue.

  Ellderwho is an elephant.

  Therefore Ellderwho is blue.

  While perfectly valid in that the conclusion follows from the premises, both the major and minor premises are demonstrably false and therefore the conclusion is unsafe. If you do happen to be blue, that's nothing more than a happy coincidence.

  Using the example of Intelligent Design, the syllogism goes something like this:

  All complex things have an intelligent designer.

  Humans are complex.

  Therefore humans have an intelligent designer.

  This is definitely a valid syllogism. The conclusion clearly follows from the premises. I would also concede that the minor premise is definitely true. However, I have two problems with accepting the syllogism as true.

  The first is that if you replace the word "humans" in the minor premise with "intelligent designers" (and it's hard to argue that an intelligent designer is not complex, given that that's a fundamental of ID) you have an equally valid syllogism which leads to the conclusion that an intelligent designer must itself have an intelligent designer. This leads to the "turtles all the way down" scenario we've been discussing.

  The second is that I do not believe the major premise to be true. It is certainly not proven. While we know that watches and televisions and websites have designers, we do not know that humans and trees and planets do. In fact, that is what those who argue for ID are trying to prove. It's cheating to use your preferred conclusion as a premise.

  I am of course aware that there is more to the arguments of ID proponents than this, but so far I haven't encountered an argument from them that doesn't have holes in it. Of course, they're not all as easy to dismiss as the one above but so far in this thread that's the only one that's been offered.
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  I suspect that some days that "someone" was having a laugh. I can't prove it, though.

  When I still believed that God made the animals, I believed that he made the platypus just to make categorizing the animals harder. Here's a duck-billed mammal that lays eggs and lactates onto its fur. "Zooligize THAT!" I heard him say with a grin.

  Dave
• 

  frenchbabyface

  now the most awfull part of it, that might help some to understand that even if we got a creator (which have to come out from intelligent material anyway) he/she (LOL) doesn't have to be absolutely good or perfect ... that means that his purpose doesn't have to be to take care of us ... some scientistes works on some experience they don't all are interested in their destiny they might just move on ... we could just be a project in box ...

  So workshiping god in knowing what we know is just worthless ... we have a chance to be alive and to get some satisfaction out of it ... that's all what we know that's the only evidence ... God is a nice dream but there is no proof and obviously he is not interested in our destiny (he didn't saved the DINOSAURE ... he might not care about us either ... for instance).
• 

  LittleToe

  Dave:
  That's exactly the case that started me down that line of reasoning - LOL.

  Corinne:
  Let's go really wild, for a moment.
  What's to say that "God" isn't also evolving, only several billion years in advance of our own state?
• 

  funkyderek

  What's to say that "God" isn't also evolving, only several billion years in advance of our own state?

  I hypothesised something similar once while in a stage of altered consciousness. It occurred to me that if humans continued to evolve - most likely through deliberate technological modifications - then eventually our descendants (biological or artificial) would gain the ability to completely manipulate time and space. They could use these abilities to go back to the beginning of the universe and modify it in such a way as to ensure their own eventual existence, and maybe even have some fun along the way by manifesting themselves as gods or aliens.

  Man, that was some good weed!