Intelligent Design Confirms a Creator...

[Lord Tammerlain]

If a creator is required who/what created the creator?

After all if the universe is too complex to be created on its own, an all powerful creator must be even more complex to be created on its own, requiring a creator.

If the creator just was, why could the universe be just because

 

[Gnosis]

First lets discuss what evidence is. One thing its not (by itself) is proof. Proof is established scientifically or legally. There isn't enough evidence or ability to test to make a scientific claim our universe and life is the result of non-intelligent forces or that it was intentionally caused by an intelligent agent. The second level of proof is a legal bench mark. In criminal cases the bar is set at evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't believe there is enough evidence for either side of this case to claim they have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. That leaves the last bar of proof which is a simply preponderance of evidence. Folks listen to all the available evidence and decide which claim has more evidence in favor than against.

Evidence are simply facts that support a contention or make a contention more true than minus said fact. The universe exists. I submit the universe as evidence because if the universe didn't exist my belief it was caused intentionally would be false. My belief can be easily falsified. If the universe or life doesn't exist my claim is false. Mindless forces don't have to cause a universe to exist. Mindless forces don't even have to exist in the first place. There doesn't have to be something rather than nothing. Lastly mindless forces don't (can't) decide to do something. They can't self initiate action they only react to a preceding cause. I argue for us to be the result of mindless forces then we are the result of actions that stretched back infinitely. That is problematic because we would have to cross an infinitude of actions and reactions to get to where we are now. This is the problem with any solution that involves infinities because actual infinities are thought not to exist. They result in all sorts of anomalies.

I submit the existence of life is evidence that favors theism. Life doesn't have to exist and if it didn't exist theism (the claim the universe was intentionally created for life) would be false. Any fact that's true that has to be true for a claim to be true is evidence in favor of that claim. If somehow we could observe a lifeless chaotic universe no one would claim such a universe was intentionally caused. No one would doubt mindless forces could create a chaotic universe. I don't dispute mindless lifeless forces exist. But who would say to themselves mindless unguided forces exist so I predict they will cause a universe that creates life with no plan or intent to do so.

I submit the laws of physics as evidence in favor of theism. Without exacting laws of physics no galaxies, stars, solar systems or planets would exist and no life would exist. Theism would be false. Mindless forces don't require or need laws of physics. They don't care if the conditions for galaxies, stars or planets exist. Yet such conditions are absolutely necessary for us to exist and for theism to be true.

I submit the fine tuning of the universe for life as evidence that favors theism. The universe is so fine-tuned for life that it is one of the reasons scientists now think this is one of an infinitude of universes with varying properties. Its the ultimate time and chance in the gaps explanation. I say in the gaps because there is no evidence other universes exist.




Which would be more magical. Mindless forces without plan or intent causing a virtual universe to exist, or scientists, engineers, programmers and designers causing a virtual universe to exist? If mindless forces without plan or intent cause the universe to exist it they should also (by chance) cause a virtual universe to exist...why not? Which would be more magical if wind and random forces caused the pyramids to exist or if Egyptian engineers cause one to exist? I never understood this argument. How is intentional design more magical than random forces unintentionally causing something?

There is proof that people existed at the time and in the location where the pyramids were constructed. There is further proof that those people constructed the pyramids. There is no proof whatsoever that intelligent/intentional design exists. That analogy is faulty.

 

[Gnosis]

No not anyone can say anything and call it evidence. For something to be evidence it has to have probable value.

Evidence is an item which a litigant proffers to make the existence of a fact more or less probable. Evidence can take the form of testimony, documents, photographs, videos, voice recordings, DNA testing, or other tangible objects.

If I accuse someone of shooting a gun the fact they own a gun makes my claim more probable than if they don't own a gun. A burger wrapper isn't a fact that makes your claim more or less probable. The existence of life makes the claim A Creator caused the universe with then intent for life to exist more probable than if no life existed.

That is circular mumbo jumbo at its worst. "The fact that life exists is proof that a creator intended for life to exist. Therefore, a creator intending for life to exist caused life to exist." That is not how logic, science, or basic rationality work.

 

[Gnosis]

If we evolved from apes, why are humans still not evolving from apes? Asking for a friend

What does that even mean?

 

[Gnosis]

You are also failing a 6th grade science class.

I'm guessing he also failed 2nd grade when the scientific method was taught.

 

[DrewPaul]

That is circular mumbo jumbo at its worst. "The fact that life exists is proof that a creator intended for life to exist. Therefore, a creator intending for life to exist caused life to exist." That is not how logic, science, or basic rationality work.

No that's how strawman arguments work. What I quoted was a dictionary definition.

 

[Galactic Spin]

No that's how strawman arguments work. What I quoted was a dictionary definition.

And yet he perfectly described the fallacy you have committed repeatedly in this thread.

 

[DrewPaul]

DrewPaul said: Do we know that mindless forces without plan or intent is capable of causing a universe that produces sentient beings capable of intent? Do we have evidence mechanistic forces without intending to or planning too could cause the myriad of conditions necessary for intelligent sentient humans to exist? Are mindless forces capable of creating a universe with exacting laws of physics that allow us to derive mathematical equations? Would you or anyone predict that mindless forces would create a universe that would cause intelligent beings to exist?

The idea there is no evidence is just a slogan that isn't true. The evidence for either of our points of view is the entire universe and everything we know. The question is what theory best explains what we observe?

Evolution does not rely on "mindless forces".

Are you now saying evolution was intentionally caused? If you claim there was no design, intent or plan for the universe or life to exist then what's left besides mindless forces that fortuitously caused all we observe.

Intelligent design attempts to solve a problem that doesn't exist, namely the straw man that you offered. Is it more likely that evolution relies on mindless forces or that an invisible, cosmic force intentionally created the entire observable universe? I can't believe that seemingly educated adults in modern times seriously argue about the answer.

Does the theory of cosmic inflation attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist? Does multiverse theory explain a problem that doesn't exist? I don't dispute evolution so you're peeing on the wrong tree.

 

[Galactic Spin]

The idea there is no evidence is just a slogan that isn't true.

You keep saying this, yet all the examples you have tried to produce were terrible and quickly dispatched.

Who are you trying to convince, at this point? Yourself?

 

[Gordy327]

Intelligent Design Confirms a Creator..​

Great. Now all one has to do is confirm Intelligent Design. Of course, to do that, one will also have to discredit evolution. Good luck with that.

 

[Gordy327]

What does that even mean?

It means he is clueless about evolution and asks the same ignorant question evolution opponents always seem to ask.

 

[DrewPaul]

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.

Said

I've already explained to you that the common definitions of gods is, by definition, imaginary.

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.

The concept of the supernatural, is literally outside of reality.

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.

You use some of the same observation and incorrectly claim they are evidence of design, when they clearly are not.

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. For other scientists its evidence of multiverse in all its flavors. Those are the only two explanations that make sense of that fact. They can use that fact as evidence in favor of what they claim I'm completely justified in using it in favor of what I claim. By the way its not up to you what is evidence its up the peanut gallery of folks listening to our debate.

Even Lee the guy you quoted earlier, has his own pet theory about black holes contributing to a sort of natural selection of universes, leading to the origins of our universe...all based loosely on science, and certainly not positing a theistic idea like a god!

No he's not. Scientists will always seek a so called naturalistic explanation. Ironically his theory is based on a fact that doesn't actually support his claim. The astronomically low probability of a universe acquiring the properties for life by chance doesn't cause an infinitude other universes to exist! Its his belief in naturalistic explanations that causes an infinitude of universes to exist.

This line of reasoning could be used to justify anything. Given an infinitude of chances (according to this theory) mindless forces could cause a laptop to exist. No planning or designing needed. Given an infinitude of attempts mindless forces could cause a virtual universe to exist. Given this logic a creator or designer is an unnecessary step no matter what we observe.

Of course as my adversary you'll have to tamp down this obviously damaging fact. Full damage control. So naturally you'll claim its not evidence. Its not my adversary's call to say what is and isn't evidence. I'm not arguing to convince you of anything. That's a fools errand. I'm making the case for the lurkers or non-responders who check out our dialog. Any sane rational person knows the fact I offered unequivocally makes my claim more probable than minus that fact. Of course its evidence. You don't even offer a counter explanation. We should just believe in luck, happenstance, serendipity and kindly warm hearted mother nature.

 

[Galactic Spin]

This line of reasoning could be used to justify anything. Given an infinitude of chances (according to this theory) mindless forces could cause a laptop to exist.

Nonsense. Your 747 fallacy is rejected. Good grief dude, you really have a lot of basic reading to do before even reentering this discussion. You have trotted out some of the most tired, worthless fallacies as if they are new to you.

 

[watsup]

Do we know that mindless forces without plan or intent is capable of causing a universe that produces sentient beings capable of intent? Do we have evidence mechanistic forces without intending to or planning too could cause the myriad of conditions necessary for intelligent sentient humans to exist? Are mindless forces capable of creating a universe with exacting laws of physics that allow us to derive mathematical equations? Would you or anyone predict that mindless forces would create a universe that

This all comes out as “blah blah blah” now because it’s just your one-trick-pony repetition.
And it is you who uses the slogan/mantra of “mindless forces” instead of actual discussion,
And, BTW, the answer to the above questions is “yes”.
The real problem: making up figments of imagination just because an item can’t be immediately explained to your satisfaction.

 

[Gnosis]

No that's how strawman arguments work. What I quoted was a dictionary definition.

Your argument is ridiculous. If you have a dictionary, look up logical fallacy and superimpose it on what you have subjected us to.

 

[grip]

Got it all out of your system? Good. Now, let's demonstrate the error you are both making:

Does the fact that the moon exists serve as evidence that rainbow unicorns made the moon out of their own poo?

Yes or no?

@DrewPaul would say yes.

Absurd, isn't it?

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.

 

[Gnosis]

DrewPaul said: Do we know that mindless forces without plan or intent is capable of causing a universe that produces sentient beings capable of intent? Do we have evidence mechanistic forces without intending to or planning too could cause the myriad of conditions necessary for intelligent sentient humans to exist? Are mindless forces capable of creating a universe with exacting laws of physics that allow us to derive mathematical equations? Would you or anyone predict that mindless forces would create a universe that would cause intelligent beings to exist?

The idea there is no evidence is just a slogan that isn't true. The evidence for either of our points of view is the entire universe and everything we know. The question is what theory best explains what we observe?

Are you now saying evolution was intentionally caused? If you claim there was no design, intent or plan for the universe or life to exist then what's left besides mindless forces that fortuitously caused all we observe.


Does the theory of cosmic inflation attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist? Does multiverse theory explain a problem that doesn't exist? I don't dispute evolution so you're peeing on the wrong tree.

I don't know if evolution is "intentional" or not, but I do know it's real. Most living organisms have impulses and tendencies toward self survival. Was that embedded into them by some unknown, unseen cosmic force? No one knows. What is insane then is insisting that such a force exists. You've created a problem that doesn't exist because you want to understand what you don't understand. It makes more sense to acknowledge that we don't know what we don't know rather than to make wild assumptions that have no basis in reality.

 

[Gnosis]

It means he is clueless about evolution and asks the same ignorant question evolution opponents always seem to ask.

The pride in ignorance is astounding.

 

[Galactic Spin]

That's not what he's saying.

Wrong. He absolutely 100% made that exact argument. He was very clear and has repeated it, despite its demonstrable absurdity.

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

And among the fallacies he has used to argue this is the one I just described. See for yourself.

 

[Gordy327]

The pride in ignorance is astounding.

A sad trait we're seeing more and more in society lately.

 

[Galactic Spin]

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

So what? If understanding our universe were intuitive, we would not have needed to invent science in the first place.

 

[Mach]

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.

You cherry-picked a poor definition. By that absurd definition, unknowns are "supernatual", which is absurd.

Try wiki, it's more logically consistent and well-sourced:

Supernatural refers to phenomena or entities that are beyond the laws of nature.[1]
The supernatural is featured in folklore and religious contexts,[4] but can also feature as an explanation in more secular contexts, as in the cases of superstitions or belief in the paranormal.[5] The term is attributed to non-physical entities, such as angels, demons, gods, and spirits. It also includes claimed abilities embodied in or provided by such beings, including magic, telekinesis, levitation, precognition, and extrasensory perception.

I mean, ghosts and demons, angels and spirits...all just "science", just like quantum mechanics? You're posts are so silly.

Quantum mechanics :Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles

There you have it folks. Quantum mechanics is science, and concerns the natural universe.
Supernatural things are not science, they are typically associated with folklore, and religion, and refer to imaginary things like demons, spirits, gods, and angels, or those with powers like magic and precognition!

Fortunately, we have the body of science, and it excludes, rightfully so, claims of design, and a designer.

It's just creation science dressed up in the latest fringes of real science, like a trojan horse...still trying after all these decades, to inject theism into science...

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

Quote him claiming it's unequivocally evidence of design. If he said that, he's as wrong-headed as your nonsense arguments.
Smolin has only hypothesized natural causes, and puts forth an idea about black holes that result in a sort of natural selection of the universes paramters. He fools himself unfortunately in trying to describe metal-rules, but then has no answer for how the meta-rules were caused, but then, I'm not the one trying to use him as argument from
authority either....

Lee Smolin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cosmological natural selection

Smolin views rejecting the idea of a creator as essential to cosmology on similar grounds to his objections against the multiverse.

 

[Mach]

No he's not. Scientists will always seek a so called naturalistic explanation. Ironically his theory is based on a fact that doesn't actually support his claim. The astronomically low probability of a universe acquiring the properties for life by chance doesn't cause an infinitude other universes to exist! Its his belief in naturalistic explanations that causes an infinitude of universes to exist.

Nonsense. We don't know how or if even in principle the idea of "cause" apples to the universe itself.

This line of reasoning could be used to justify anything.

You're the one that has argued the multiverse, not me. I simply showed you that the multiverse hypothesis isn't really science.

Its not my adversary's call to say what is and isn't evidence. I'm not arguing to convince you of anything. That's a fools errand. I'm making the case for the lurkers or non-responders who check out our dialog. Any sane rational person knows the fact I offered unequivocally makes my claim more probable than minus that fact. Of course its evidence. You don't even offer a counter explanation. We should just believe in luck, happenstance, serendipity and kindly warm hearted mother nature.

I agree, you can't debate me, and your attempts to do so, do appear to be a fools errand. You admit you're really just here to cast doubt on science and open the door for theism. Everyone knows it, including anyone reading.
You will convince no one, but you'll make a fool of yourself with these silly arguments and transparent agenda.

 

[DrewPaul]

If a creator is required who/what created the creator?

After all if the universe is too complex to be created on its own, an all powerful creator must be even more complex to be created on its own, requiring a creator.

If the creator just was, why could the universe be just because

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.

 

[DrewPaul]

I agree, you can't debate me, and your attempts to do so, do appear to be a fools errand. You admit you're really just here to cast doubt on science and open the door for theism. Everyone knows it, including anyone reading.
You will convince no one, but you'll make a fool of yourself with these silly arguments and transparent agenda.

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.