Intelligent Design Confirms a Creator...

[watsup]

I agree you can't acknowledge it. Its too deeply ingrained in your mind. I mentioned 6 pages ago that even if we went to 50 pages you'd still beat your chest and claim no evidence.

No one is beating their chest. I am merely acknowledging a fact: there is no objective, reality-based evidence for an extra-natural entity, no matter what name it is given by those who propose such a figment of imagination.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Because I've made no claims about where the intelligent designer came from just as you make no claim where or how mindless forces came into existence. My claim is about the existence of the universe and why it caused intelligent humans to exist. I have no need to stoop to dishonesty.

Nor to I claim to know how a such a being(s) caused the universe to exist...and you don't claim to know how naturalistic forces came into existence and caused a universe with laws of physics to exist do you? Theism is a philosophical belief based on evidence no matter how often you deny it.

Nope, theism is based 100% on belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Definition of THEISM

belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[grip]

I agree you can't acknowledge it. Its too deeply ingrained in your mind. I mentioned 6 pages ago that even if we went to 50 pages you'd still beat your chest and claim no evidence.

The depth of their argument is always "no evidence," boring, huh? Because of a superiority complex, they can't even admit the slightest possibility of intellect above their own. We all know there's no permanent proof of a supreme being, which should lead to some intriguing dialogue but sadly always ends up with a small group of atheist bullies hurling insults to win some imaginary prize.

 

[watsup]

The depth of their argument is always "no evidence," boring, huh? Because of a superiority complex, they can't even admit the slightest possibility of intellect above their own. We all know there's no permanent proof of a supreme being, which should lead to some intriguing dialogue but sadly always ends up with a small group of atheist bullies hurling insults to win some imaginary prize.

You do know that it is your buddy Drew Paul who is doing most of the “hurling insults to win some imaginary prize”, right?

 

[grip]

You do know that it is your buddy Drew Paul who is doing most of the “hurling insults to win some imaginary prize”, right?

IMO, DrewPaul sounds much more fair and reasonable.

 

[Galactic Spin]

The depth of their argument is always "no evidence," boring, huh?

Yes, it's definitely not as exciting as making up magical nonsense.

But it works.

 

[Galactic Spin]

IMO, DrewPaul sounds much more fair and reasonable.

Then you haven't read the thread and haven't seen his absolutely horrible illogic about what constitutes evidence.

 

[grip]

Yes, it's definitely not as exciting as making up magical nonsense.

But it works.

By your standards, any theory that posits the possibility of intrinsic intelligence within the universe is magical nonsense. That's simply being narrowminded, not analytical discussion.

 

[grip]

Then you haven't read the thread and haven't seen his absolutely horrible illogic about what constitutes evidence.

I've read enough and simply don't share your opinion.

 

[Galactic Spin]

By your standards, any theory that posits the possibility of intrinsic intelligence within the universe is magical nonsense.

False. Stop making things up. Thanks. And what you just described is not the same as positing an intelligent creator/designer. So you made something up and pulled a bait and switch. Rejected.

Is this the sort of dishonest behavior we can expect from you?

 

[Galactic Spin]

I've read enough and simply don't share your opinion.

It's not an opinion. So no, you clearly did not read it or ignored it. Just like he did. Coincidence? Of course not.

You don't even know what I am talking about.

His argument for what constitutes evidence has been demonstrated to be hot garbage. And it is not opinion.

 

[ttwtt78640]

IMO, DrewPaul sounds much more fair and reasonable.

Really? With the assertion (in post #622) that theism is evidence based? His entire ‘evidence’ is that stuff exists therefore (his?) God designed and created it.

Definition of THEISM

belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Mach]

Your one note is the claim there is no evidence in favor of theism.

No, that's just the stopping point.
No evidence, you don't pass go, you don't collect $200.
You can't skip the evidence part, it's a toll booth.

I can ask you what are the odds mindless forces bootstrapped themselves into existence and then minus intent or plan or an engineering degree, caused a universe that subsequently causes intelligent life to exist? The odds according to scientists are so slim they invoke the ultimate time and chance naturalism in the gaps multiverse explanation. We as humans used the power of intelligence and creativity to cause a virtual universe to exist. They didn't wait around for mindless forces to bootstrap a virtual universe into existence.

Even Lee who you quoted, who personally appears to believe probability as related to universal parameters, posits a purely natural hypothetical for his belief in how the universe formed...a form of cosmic natural selection. Purely natural....no theism involved or necessary.

The mindless forces you speak of? I don't know maybe you can tell me.

Most of the universe is without a mind. Minds are only evidenced in the tiniest fraction of the universe on this one planet so far. The rest, is unfeeling, unthinking mass and energy.
And all evidence indicates those minds arouse from that unfeeling, unthinking universe.

The depth of their argument is always "no evidence," boring, huh? Because of a superiority complex, they can't even admit the slightest possibility of intellect above their own. We all know there's no permanent proof of a supreme being, which should lead to some intriguing dialogue but sadly always ends up with a small group of atheist bullies hurling insults to win some imaginary prize.

Evidence/observation of reality is ultimately required to make true claims about reality.

That's just how reasoning works. No evidence, and you don't have a reasoned claim.
It's not superiority, it's the exact opposite. We are humbled by reality and the work to find facts describing reality is really, really difficult and time consuming and difficult.
Humble. That's why good science takes so long....as opposed to writing a fiction book and claiming it's true.

And it's sad that some theists see the need to create lies, like the devil which they claim to reject, and lie and lie about religion and science in an effort to get others to agree with their mythological beliefs.

 

[DrewPaul]

Almost as silly as creation mythology.

No, we've shown you time and time again that the existence of the universe is only evidence of existence of the universe.
It doesn't indicate any "probability" whatsoever., It's why you haven't shown evidence of probability, and have instead simply claimed that existence magically necessitates some increase in probability.

The existence of the universe makes your counter claim (the one you never care to defend) that the universe was caused unintentionally by naturalistic forces more probable than if it didn't exist. Your claim would be false if the universe didn't exist no? So the existence of the universe makes your claim more probable than if it didn't exist. In fact your claim would be falsified if the universe didn't exist. The heartburn comes when I use the same fact that makes my claim more probable. Take some Rolaids.

Evidence: Facts that make a claim more probable or less probable than minus such facts. Evidence isn't proof of a claim. Its merely facts that comport with it. If you were making a case to support your belief, the universe would be exhibit 1A. How could you claim the universe was caused by mindless forces without first establishing the fact the universe exists? Neither of our claims can possibly be true if the universe doesn't exist. In a murder case exhibit 1A is (if they have one) a picture of the deceased. Are you doing to say something ridiculous like Your Honor a dead body is only evidence a body died. They don't always have a body but to prove murder, still you have to establish someone died. You can call it a prerequisite. The existence of the universe makes our claims more probable than if not.

F1. The universe exists. You'll be happy to know though that if the universe didn't exist your claim there is no evidence in favor of theism would actually be true!
The existence of the universe makes either claim more probable. Which is more probable? That's for the peanut gallery to decide.

F2. Life exists

This is where your claim runs into trouble. Its an indisputable fact life exists. If we could observe a lifeless universe, no one would claim that universe was created for the existence of life. I can't claim the universe was intentionally caused for life to exist, unless life exists. It is unnecessary to the claim we owe our existence to natural unguided forces that life exist. What would naturalistic forces care if life existed or not? You spoke of unnecessary steps. The existence of life is an unnecessary step for naturalistic forces. The existence of life is contradictory to the belief our existence wasn't intentionally caused. No one would say I believe mindless forces caused the universe therefore I expect life to exist. The expectation of mindless forces that didn't intend life to exist is that life wouldn't exist!

An even greater number of conditions need to prevail to allow sentient life the time to develop. If unguided naturalistic forces were responsible they managed to create something unlike itself life and mind to exist without plan or intent to do so. That's a tall drink of water.

F3. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.

Lets talk about what's unnecessary again. It is necessary for a universe caused by mindless forces to have laws of nature? And all the attributes listed above? No according to the belief you never defend nothing is necessary. It is however necessary for my claim to be true. It is necessary for mindless forces to create a universe in which mathematical formula's are derived?

I know to your dying breath you will claim there is no evidence in favor of theism no matter how silly that makes you look. It's become for most atheists an axiom.

 

[mrjurrs]

So, intelligence springs from nothing...got it...

No. it springs from a million generations of evolution.

 

[grip]

False. Stop making things up. Thanks. And what you just described is not the same as positing an intelligent creator/designer. So you made something up and pulled a bait and switch. Rejected.

Is this the sort of dishonest behavior we can expect from you?

It's not an opinion. So no, you clearly did not read it or ignored it. Just like he did. Coincidence? Of course not.

You don't even know what I am talking about.

His argument for what constitutes evidence has been demonstrated to be hot garbage. And it is not opinion.

Did you say something worthwhile? No, I didn't think so.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Did you say something worthwhile? No, I didn't think so.

I posted the argument -- more than once-- that shows his argument for what is evidence is specious garbage.

You ignored it more than once. Just as he did.

Which is predictable behavior. And we both know why.

 

[grip]

I posted the argument -- more than once-- that shows his argument for what is evidence is specious garbage.

You ignored it more than once. Just as he did.

Which is predictable behavior. And we both know why.

That's true, I ignore stupidity.

 

[watsup]

By your standards, any theory that posits the possibility of intrinsic intelligence within the universe is magical nonsense. That's simply being narrowminded, not analytical discussion.

What IS the possibility of “intrinsic intelligence” within them universe? Where did IT come from? What form does it take?

 

[Gordy327]

The depth of their argument is always "no evidence," boring, huh? Because of a superiority complex, they can't even admit the slightest possibility of intellect above their own. We all know there's no permanent proof of a supreme being, which should lead to some intriguing dialogue but sadly always ends up with a small group of atheist bullies hurling insults to win some imaginary prize.

Superiority has nothingvto do with anything. Although, invoking that infers a feeling of inferiority on your part. Regardless, it is all about the evidence. Anyone can contemplate a "Supreme being." But without evidence, one cannot honestly affirm such a claim. It seems to be more of an emotional need to invoke a "Supreme being," especially when there is no evidence.

By your standards, any theory that posits the possibility of intrinsic intelligence within the universe is magical nonsense. That's simply being narrowminded, not analytical discussion.

A valid theory requires valid evidence to support it.

 

[DrewPaul]

Said

Even Lee who you quoted, who personally appears to believe probability as related to universal parameters, posits a purely natural hypothetical for his belief in how the universe formed...a form of cosmic natural selection. Purely natural....no theism involved or necessary.

All you're doing is showing bias of one explanation over another. Plus you're now offering an idea you rejected. You still live in the fantasy world that one universe could have popped into existence uncaused out of nothing and without any instructions or second chances produced the universe we observe that allows for intelligent life to exist.

Cosmological Natural Selection: New Theory on Universe's Origins

In my opinion, the theory of evolution by natural selection is one of the most elegant and by far one of the most encompassing theories humanity has ever come up with. Even though it was originally proposed in biology, the underlying idea has been applied to scientific fields across the board...

futurism.com

Such a hypothesis explains several aspects of our universe, such as why the fundamental constants of physics are so conducive to live. After all, universes containing large quantities of matter (which allows for the formation of the things we see) are more likely to spawn black holes – in other words, universes containing the ‘stuff of life’ have a better chance of ‘reproducing’ than those that don’t. Obviously, natural selection in this way would favor universes that were able to produce more offspring.

This theory is basically multiverse theory on crack (or, rather the landscape multiverse which is the traditionally proposed model for the multiverse). These universal offspring would form inside black holes and ‘genetic mutations’ would allow for different physical constants to accompany the new baby universe. Moreover, according to conventional physics, information can’t really travel across the event horizon of a black hole (See: The Black Hole War, My Battle with Stephen Hawking for more on that) – this basically creates a universe isolated and inaccessible to the parent universe.
Such a hypothesis explains several aspects of our universe, such as why the fundamental constants of physics are so conducive to live. After all, universes containing large quantities of matter (which allows for the formation of the things we see) are more likely to spawn black holes – in other words, universes containing the ‘stuff of life’ have a better chance of ‘reproducing’ than those that don’t. Obviously, natural selection in this way would favor universes that were able to produce more offspring.

I liked the part 'Multiverse theory on crack'

Once again he's come up with this theory that due to his calculation the odds of a life-compatible universe is 1 in 10^229. He knows your fantasy didn't happen.

The theory the universe was intentionally designed isn't any wilder and is Occams Razor friendly.

 

[Mach]

The theory the universe was intentionally designed isn't any wilder and is Occams Razor friendly.

1. It's not a theory, it's a hypothetical.
2. It's not a reasoned hypothetical, it's a theistic hypothetical, which resides in theism, not science.
3. It's a hypothetical claim, made with no evidence to support it (there cannot be)
4. Intentional design adds complexity, and a universe without "intentional design" is more simple, and the path of Occams Razaor.
5. Intentional design would also just beg the question, who designed the designer, which "preserves" the original question and gets you next to nowhere.

 

[Mach]

I know to your dying breath you will claim there is no evidence in favor of theism no matter how silly that makes you look. It's become for most atheists an axiom.

If there is no evidence for theism, why would the answer ever change?

Theism is excluded from science, as we all know, because it's not science. It's not a description ....even in principle, of reality.
In contrast to reality, it is by definition alone, "not real". It's imaginary.

Anti-science attitudes
While the scientific method is broadly accepted in the scientific community, some fractions of society reject certain scientific positions or are skeptical about science. Examples are the common notion that COVID-19 is not a major health threat to the US (held by 39% of Americans in August 2021)[247] or the belief that climate change is not a major threat to the US (also held by 40% of Americans, in late 2019 and early 2020).[248] Psychologists have pointed to four factors driving rejection of scientific results:[249]

• Scientific authorities are sometimes seen as inexpert, untrustworthy, or biased.
• Some marginalized social groups hold anti-science attitudes, in part because these groups have often been exploited in unethical experiments.[250]
• Messages from scientists may contradict deeply-held existing beliefs or morals.
• The delivery of a scientific message may not be appropriately targeted to a recipient's learning style.

#3 appears to apply to your arguments.

 

[Gnosis]

This video delves into the fact that science puts limitations on determining evolution versus intelligent design...IOW, they must have a closed mind when it comes to ID...it rules out the cause even before it has time to speak...

Well, intelligent design is both impossible and . . . insane. It isn't about "closed" or "open" minds. It's about understanding the laws of nature and science.

 

[DrewPaul]

I know there is a universe. You, on the other hand, are just promoting a figment of imagination in claiming that there is an “Intelligent Designer”.

You claim it was benevolent mother nature. Not much of an improvement.