Intelligent Design Confirms a Creator...

[watsup]

Drew: I'm not talking to a definition of atheism I'm talking to you. Is it your contention God could well exist and may have been responsible for the existence of the of the universe and intelligent life but you simply lack that belief? You'd throw up before you would admit that.

It’s not the definition of atheism. It’s a ridiculous question of no merit.

 

[watsup]

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that simple universal forces don't coalesce into something more sophisticated and intelligent without guidance. Humanity has become more advanced in its evolvement due to an ecological system designed to force species adaptation.

The idea that this system arose from unintelligent natural forces alone is what's counterintuitive.

No, what’s counterintuitive is to just overlay a figment of imagination on top of it and then claim that it’s all solved.

 

[Mach]

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that simple universal forces don't coalesce into something more sophisticated and intelligent without guidance.

Sure, but guidance like natural selection, or guidance like a theistic deity? One is an attempt at science, although its more philosophy than science.
The other is theistic/religious in nature, and isn't science at all.

And unfortunately, regardless of the answer, there is no offered evidence to support the claim.
Worse, even if there were, it just begs the question, who guided this "guider", leaving the question still open and answered.

Humanity has become more advanced in its evolvement due to an ecological system designed to force species adaptation.
The idea that this system arose from unintelligent natural forces alone is what's counterintuitive.

Not if you read up on biology, and don't have core religious beliefs that you think are disproven by such theories.
I mean, science isn't for everyone, it's not easy. But you can read:

""Origin of life" redirects here. For non-scientific views on the origins of life, see Creation myth.
In biology, abiogenesis (from a- 'not' + Greek bios 'life' + genesis 'origin') or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds."

Did you read that? Creation, is a myth. It is non-scientific.
There are plenty of working hypothesis for the origin of life through natural process. Given that it was billions of years ago, and that we don't really have camera footage or recorded history, it makes it diffiult...but that difficulty is NOT an excuse for positing creation myth (or design myth).

 

[watsup]

I hope you don't think this argument originated with you. Every atheist I've ever spoken with thinks this is a great gotcha argument. If I say you're right the Creator would need a Creator are you now a theist since I over came your objection? Of course not. Its just an atheist canard along with the no evidence claim.

It’s absolutely hilarious to see you claiming that it is others who have offered a “gotcha argument” made by “every” person in that regard. There is not greater gotcha argument among the ID proponents than “mindless forces”. Every person who has ever come here with a claim of some sort of extra-natural entity has recited those words. For you to hang your hat on them as if they were some sort of original argumentation shows just how UNaware you are.

 

[watsup]

So says the guy who's side of the argument is believed by less than 5% of the population. Even non-religious people don't subscribe to the belief our existence occurred by pure happenstance.

It is not our problem if people insist on being superstitious, but that alone does not prove a thing.
Now prove you 5% claim. I doubt that you can.

 

[Mach]

So says the guy who's side of the argument is believed by less than 5% of the population. Even non-religious people don't subscribe to the belief our existence occurred by pure happenstance.

More fallacy:

"Argumentum ad populum:
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people")[1] is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because the majority thinks so.[2]"

​

 

[Gordy327]

So says the guy who's side of the argument is believed by less than 5% of the population.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Even non-religious people don't subscribe to the belief our existence occurred by pure happenstance.

There is nothing to suggest there was anything "intentional" about our existence. That might be something people tell themselves or believe to feel "special."

I hope you don't think this argument originated with you. Every atheist I've ever spoken with thinks this is a great gotcha argument. If I say you're right the Creator would need a Creator are you now a theist since I over came your objection? Of course not. Its just an atheist canard along with the no evidence claim.

That argument just points out the illogic of invoking a "Creator" as a cause or reason.

I'm not arguing in favor of common gods (whatever those are). I'm arguing and claiming our universe was intentionally rigged to cause life to exist.

And your evidence to support this claim is...?

adjective: supernatural
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

According to this (let me borrow your favorite phrase) the universe is by definition a supernatural event. Scientists claim the laws of nature we are familiar with break down at time t-0. Clearly quantum entanglement is by definition a supernatural event. There is currently no scientific explanation for how such occurs and it appears to transcend laws of nature.

That is not quite accurate. We can trace time back to the Planck Epoch. Before that, the laws of nature become murky. Quantum mechanics is a fascinating field and not fully understood. But it does not deal with or is supernatural in its own right.

The fact alone the Lee Smolin has calculated the odds of the universe randomly hitting upon all the properties to cause intelligent life at 10^229 is unequivocally evidence of design.

No, it's not. That is only his opinion. There is no actual objective evidence of actual Design.

 

[Gnosis]

There is not a thing about evolution that contradicts ID, especially in light of the premise of the designer designing in self sustaining systems, including evolution. Evolution might be able to contradict specific creation stories that make certain claims, but not the generalized concept of ID.

I think the more important point is that there is no evidence supporting ID. Belief in it is supported only by faith, which is irrational.

 

[Gnosis]

Why can't religious people be happy with belief? Why bother saying your beliefs are rational.

And why bother the rest of us with it? I'm not going to try to convince a religious person that their religious beliefs are irrational, so I would appreciate if they didn't try to convince the rest of us that they are.

 

[Galactic Spin]

So says the guy who's side of the argument is believed by less than 5% of the population. Even non-religious people don't subscribe to the belief our existence occurred by pure happenstance.

So what? That doesn't make your fallacies any less specious, or your non sequiturs any more valid.

 

[watsup]

So says the guy who's side of the argument is believed by less than 5% of the population. Even non-religious people don't subscribe to the belief our existence occurred by pure happenstance.

What DrewPaul refuses to acknowledge. And for good reason. It would ruin his entire narrative.

“Setting aside any appeal to Darwinism for the moment, what could it possibly mean to say that complexity in living things implies the existence of an intelligent designer like God? One can only assume that God, whatever that term might refer to, must have at least as much complexity as anything He is supposed to have designed. Given the theist’s assumption that complexity requires a designer, God’s own complexity implies that He also requires a designer. Either the theist is arguing for an infinite regress of God-designers and designers of God-designers, etc., or he is contradicting his own assumption that complexity requires design. By using God as an “explanation” the theist is doing nothing more than explaining complexity (in living things) with complexity (God’s). But this amounts to assuming what one is trying to explain, which is no explanation at all. It just moves the mystery back a step.”

Weight Loss Basics For Seniors: The SilverSneakers Guide

It’s harder to lose weight as you get older, but it’s not impossible. Here’s how to build a weight-loss strategy that will stand the test of time.

www.silversneakers.com

 

[DrewPaul]

More fallacy:

"Argumentum ad populum: ​

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people")[1] is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because the majority thinks so.[2]"​

​

​

The fact more people believe in astrology than believe atheism is correct doesn't mean atheism is wrong. Its just means your sanctimonious self serving arguments only persuade your fellow atheists.

 

[Gnosis]

The fact more people believe in astrology than believe atheism is correct doesn't mean atheism is wrong. Its just means your sanctimonious self serving arguments only persuade your fellow atheists.

How is atheism self serving?

 

[DrewPaul]

What DrewPaul refuses to acknowledge. And for good reason. It would ruin his entire narrative.

“Setting aside any appeal to Darwinism for the moment, what could it possibly mean to say that complexity in living things implies the existence of an intelligent designer like God? One can only assume that God, whatever that term might refer to, must have at least as much complexity as anything He is supposed to have designed. Given the theist’s assumption that complexity requires a designer, God’s own complexity implies that He also requires a designer. Either the theist is arguing for an infinite regress of God-designers and designers of God-designers, etc., or he is contradicting his own assumption that complexity requires design. By using God as an “explanation” the theist is doing nothing more than explaining complexity (in living things) with complexity (God’s). But this amounts to assuming what one is trying to explain, which is no explanation at all. It just moves the mystery back a step.”

Weight Loss Basics For Seniors: The SilverSneakers Guide

It’s harder to lose weight as you get older, but it’s not impossible. Here’s how to build a weight-loss strategy that will stand the test of time.

www.silversneakers.com

I've responded to this argument at at least three times. Can't you think of anything new then these shop worn cliches you copy and paste? Do you think the universe poofed into existence uncaused out of nothing? Then what alternative explanation do you offer that doesn't involve a mystery step back? The answers none. Is it your contention the universe poofed into existence uncaused out of nothing? Any evidence that is true? Do you deny the explanation for the existence of a laptop requires something more complex the laptop?

The most popular theory that explains how a universe with exacting conditions to cause intelligent life is this universe is one of an infinitude which requires an endless recession of events.

 

[watsup]

Its just means your sanctimonious self serving arguments only persuade your fellow atheists.

Whereas your utterly simplistic “argument from complexity” is embraced by millions upon millions of those who don’t like to think too much.

 

[watsup]

Can't you think of anything new then these shop worn cliches you copy and paste?

Oh my goodness! Has anyone EVER made a statement that is so provable as psychological projection! An old and tired worn cliche is the very foundation of your claims!

Do you think the universe poofed into existence uncaused out of nothing?

Tell us again from whence the Intelligent Designer came.

Do you deny the explanation for the existence of a laptop requires something more complex the laptop?

And oh my goodness! You follow up with yet ANOTHER tired old worn cliche! Do you never tire of embarrassing yourself!!!!!!

 

[iguanaman]

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that simple universal forces don't coalesce into something more sophisticated and intelligent without guidance. Humanity has become more advanced in its evolvement due to an ecological system designed to force species adaptation.

The idea that this system arose from unintelligent natural forces alone is what's counterintuitive.

What I ask is what is so intelligent about "designing" 350,000 species of beetles?

Numbers of species.
Beetles (Order Coleoptera) are known to include some 350,000 described species.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...les%20known.&usg=AOvVaw08kZG3hYkbITFJi66SLhpA

 

[watsup]

What I ask is what is so intelligent about "designing" 350,000 species of beetles?

Numbers of species.
Beetles (Order Coleoptera) are known to include some 350,000 described species.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiPzIj_3c_7AhUhsDEKHePYD50QFnoECBMQAw&url=https://www.si.edu/spotlight/buginfo/beetle#:~:text=Numbers%20of%20species.,30%2C000%20kinds%20of%20beetles%20known.&usg=AOvVaw08kZG3hYkbITFJi66SLhpA

Congrats to whoever designed thr seahorse! What an interesting looking creature!

 

[Daisy]

How is atheism self serving?

Doesn't it put the atheist in control rather than surrendering to God and His way of doing things?

 

[Argent]

Congrats to whoever designed thr seahorse! What an interesting looking creature!

Seahorse males get pregnant and give birth which does not fit the paradigm of christian belief

 

[Argent]

Doesn't it put the atheist in control rather than surrendering to God and His way of doing things?

War language is alienating particularly when speaking of a deity who allegedly has total power; makes it sound like those surrendering are prisoners of war. And you've confirmed that religion is about control.

 

[Gnosis]

Doesn't it put the atheist in control rather than surrendering to God and His way of doing things?

How so? If God is omniscient and in control, then the mental musings of mortals can't misdirect her will. An atheist is no more in control of a God-given Earth than a believer is.

 

[Logician Man]

Doesn't it put the atheist in control rather than surrendering to God and His way of doing things?

What does 2 Kings 2: 23-24 say about "God and his ways of doing things", specifically?

 

[Gordy327]

Doesn't it put the atheist in control rather than surrendering to God and His way of doing things?

Are you suggesting god is not in control of atheists?

 

[Daisy]

War language is alienating particularly when speaking of a deity who allegedly has total power; makes it sound like those surrendering are prisoners of war. And you've confirmed that religion is about control.

No, it is about submitting willingly/freely because you understand your Creator knows your make-up, He knows what is best for you...I believe that with all my heart...