Intelligent Design

[Thor 2]

It would seem that PartSkeptic has got to Earth. Possibly searching for material to back up his claim that ........ "The God idea is at least based on observation and deduction"

 

[Aridas]

Any doctor can give you a list as long as your arm.


The evidence says otherwise on both counts.


Intended by what or whom? Intended towards what goal? And is not "broken" vitamin creation not a quite glaring error?

It sounds like you might just not like the simple fact that the designer paid sooooo much more attention to creating ameobas than humans. So much complexity shown off in such a tiny form. There is little choice but to accept that ameobas are far closer to the pinnacle of the creator's work than man and it is naught but hubris to pretend otherwise.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It sounds like you might just not like the simple fact that the designer paid sooooo much more attention to creating ameobas than humans. So much complexity shown off in such a tiny form. There is little choice but to accept that ameobas are far closer to the pinnacle of the creator's work than man and it is naught but hubris to pretend otherwise.

I disagree.
For the purposes of DNA replication, which is the only relevant factor, higher organisms are way better carriers than unicellular organisms with little room for waste.
The human genome can carry a massive amount of Junk DNA without significantly affecting host survival rates, making it the far better creation from the point of view of nucleotide sequences.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I disagree.
For the purposes of DNA replication, which is the only relevant factor, higher organisms are way better carriers than unicellular organisms with little room for waste.
The human genome can carry a massive amount of Junk DNA without significantly affecting host survival rates, making it the far better creation from the point of view of nucleotide sequences.

As a favor to a geneticist, please stop using the term 'junk DNA', that term has been put into the dust bin over 20 years ago. Just because it doesn't code for a protein doesn't mean it has no function. In fact, the opposite, it turns out a lot of that DNA codes for either regulatory sequences of all those newly discovered small nuclear RNA's that do all sorts of things in the nucleus.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

As a favor to a geneticist, please stop using the term 'junk DNA', that term has been put into the dust bin over 20 years ago. Just because it doesn't code for a protein doesn't mean it has no function. In fact, the opposite, it turns out a lot of that DNA codes for either regulatory sequences of all those newly discovered small nuclear RNA's that do all sorts of things in the nucleus.

sorry, you are not up-to-date on DNA research it seems.
Junk-DNA is not the same as non-coding. Even if you include regions necessary to bend the DNA in such a way as to allow far-off promoter region to reach the coding sequence, you are still left with very large stretches which have no function.
These are non-functional snippets of DNA-viruses, mostly.

You can make the argument that these sequences provide a pool from which mutations might create new genes, but studies have show that such events are extremely rare. Alternatively, you could say that they help soak up DNA-damage by providing an alternative target for chemicals/radiation.

Call it what you like, but our genome could make do without a lot of nucleotides without impairing function: large parts of it are freeloading on the rest of the genome, which is no big deal since sequences that are never transcribed only cost the organism during replication.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

It sounds like you might just not like the simple fact that the designer paid sooooo much more attention to creating ameobas than humans. So much complexity shown off in such a tiny form. There is little choice but to accept that ameobas are far closer to the pinnacle of the creator's work than man and it is naught but hubris to pretend otherwise.

I think God switched off the sarcasm gene in some of the posters who've responded to your latest posts.

 

[Aridas]

I think God switched off the sarcasm gene in some of the posters who've responded to your latest posts.

One more reason to consider ameobas superior! I've never seen any of them show that they didn't get such an obvious joke.

 

[Peregrinus]

Once again we see that irony, sarcasm, and tongue-in-cheek do not play well on the internet stage. (This condition is hardly restricted to one forum.)

 

[Fudbucker]

It would seem that PartSkeptic has got to Earth. Possibly searching for material to back up his claim that ........ "The God idea is at least based on observation and deduction"

Ontological argument.

One could also conclude, inductively, that god is the best explanation for the spiritual feelings one feels.

 

[Peregrinus]

... the best explanation for the spiritual feelings one feels.

How does one know such feelings are spiritual? Are you an aesthete? A flagellant? A berserker? A stoner? These have all been at one time or another by one person or another claimed as "spiritual."

"Vanity of vanities; all is vanity" in the true Elizabethan sense of the term.

 

[Aridas]

Ontological argument.

One could also conclude, inductively, that god is the best explanation for the spiritual feelings one feels.

First of all... your link disagrees with your usage a bit.

Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone.

Thus, "observation" is automatically disqualified. Going further, as a general rule, ontological arguments tend to have a very, very significant flaw. Not only do they try to define a god into existence (frequently vaguely), which is somewhat laughable to start with, what they try to define into divinity frequently ends up being a notably different concept than the one that they're trying to prove. Or, as the link put it...

One general criticism of ontological arguments which have appeared hitherto is this: none of them is persuasive, i.e., none of them provides those who do not already accept the conclusion that God exists—and who are reasonable, reflective, well-informed, etc.—with either a pro tanto reason or an all-things-considered reason to accept that conclusion. Any reading of any ontological argument which has been produced so far which is sufficiently clearly stated to admit of evaluation yields a result which is invalid, or possesses a set of premises which it is clear in advance that no reasonable, reflective, well-informed, etc. non-theists will accept, or has a benign conclusion which has no religious significance, or else falls prey to more than one of the above failings.

One could also conclude, inductively, that god is the best explanation for the spiritual feelings one feels.

One can conclude pretty much anything if one is willing to accept bad premises and/or logic. So what?

 

[Pixel42]

Ontological argument.

One could also conclude, inductively, that god is the best explanation for the spiritual feelings one feels.

I'm tempted to just type lol but I'm an adult, so ....

How exactly is postulating another layer of turtles entity for which there is no objective evidence a better explanation of "spiritual feelings" than those provided by neuroscience?

 

[Donn]

I'm tempted to just type lol but I'm an adult, so ....

How exactly is postulating another layer of turtles entity for which there is no objective evidence a better explanation of "spiritual feelings" than those provided by neuroscience?

It's all standard M.O in this hood. These dumb arguments circle because the faithful never accept correction, they simply lurch to the next and then around again.

 

[Peregrinus]

.... the faithful never accept correction, they simply lurch to the next and then around again.

Clean cup! Move down!

 

[Fudbucker]

First of all... your link disagrees with your usage a bit.



Thus, "observation" is automatically disqualified. Going further, as a general rule, ontological arguments tend to have a very, very significant flaw. Not only do they try to define a god into existence (frequently vaguely), which is somewhat laughable to start with, what they try to define into divinity frequently ends up being a notably different concept than the one that they're trying to prove. Or, as the link put it...

Ontological arguments are deductive, yes. Other theistic arguments are inductive. I was responding to Thor's post. There ARE deductive/inductive arguments for god. I don't think they're particularly persuasive, but they do exist, and serious people debate their merits. The ontological argument has been reformulated off and on for almost a thousand years.

 

[Thor 2]

Ontological arguments are deductive, yes. Other theistic arguments are inductive. I was responding to Thor's post. There ARE deductive/inductive arguments for god. I don't think they're particularly persuasive, but they do exist, and serious people debate their merits. The ontological argument has been reformulated off and on for almost a thousand years.

Yes, I have had the pleasure displeasure of hearing some of those arguments as well and they are not impressive. Just was interested to hear what PartSkeptic would come up with - if he comes up with anything. Maybe he is buried deep in some manuscripts looking for something.

 

[Fudbucker]

Yes, I have had the pleasure displeasure of hearing some of those arguments as well and they are not impressive. Just was interested to hear what PartSkeptic would come up with - if he comes up with anything. Maybe he is buried deep in some manuscripts looking for something.

I think the strongest argument would be the fine-tuning problem in cosmology (which I linked to before). Unfortunately, for theists, an infinite (or really large) multiverse explains fine-tuning nicely.

Fortunately, for theists, multiverse theory has been attacked by scientists as unscientific. So you've got a popular, but possibly unscientific unfalsifiable theory to account for prima fascie fine-tuning. Cosmology and cognitive science are fascinating these days, if you're into philosophy.

ETA: Why would something like the ontological argument cause you displeasure? It's a fascinating argument.

 

[Thor 2]

I think the strongest argument would be the fine-tuning problem in cosmology (which I linked to before). Unfortunately, for theists, an infinite (or really large) multiverse explains fine-tuning nicely.

Fortunately, for theists, multiverse theory has been attacked by scientists as unscientific. So you've got a popular, but possibly unscientific unfalsifiable theory to account for prima fascie fine-tuning. Cosmology and cognitive science are fascinating these days, if you're into philosophy.

ETA: Why would something like the ontological argument cause you displeasure? It's a fascinating argument.

Sorry, a bit sloppy in what I was saying there. I was referring to arguments for the existence of God generally which I have found somewhat wanting.

PartSkeptic said Gods existence could be established by observation and deduction as I understand it. I don't think he actually mentioned the ontological argument.

 

[Aridas]

Ontological arguments are deductive, yes. Other theistic arguments are inductive. I was responding to Thor's post.

I think that you misread slightly, then, as he referenced PartSkeptic's observation and deduction claim. *shrug*

There ARE deductive/inductive arguments for god. I don't think they're particularly persuasive, but they do exist, and serious people debate their merits.

They do exist. Serious people do debate their merits. Those two things are technically true.

The ontological argument has been reformulated off and on for almost a thousand years.

Ontological argument(s), more specifically. By this point, it's a category of arguments rather than a specific argument.

I think the strongest argument would be the fine-tuning problem in cosmology (which I linked to before). Unfortunately, for theists, an infinite (or really large) multiverse explains fine-tuning nicely.

It could, but there's no need to go that far. Without even an actually working theory of everything or something similar, having a sample size of 1 to work with means that the fine-tuning argument in cosmology is close to dead on arrival. By close to dead, I mean that it cannot actually be alive yet for lack of basis outside of unindicated speculation. Only after we have calculations that actually work could it become a meaningful argument rather than an attempt to build a stone castle on a foundation of air. The puddle analogy only really comes into play when one starts trying to marvel about the incredible unlikelihood of us being in a universe that allows for life in the first place, which, given that we could only be in a universe that allows for life (short of generally continual outside inference), actually has a probability of effectively 100%, rather than being even remotely unlikely.

ETA: Why would something like the ontological argument cause you displeasure? It's a fascinating argument.

The only fascinating point about them is that anyone would treat them as valid arguments in the first place. As a general rule, they're little more than examples of playing with semantics, generally with notable and easily demonstrable fallacies invoked. Redefining "god" to mean "the sum total of everything" or "the greatest thing that can be imagined that exists," for example, does not actually support the claim that the Christian god exists.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Sorry, a bit sloppy in what I was saying there. I was referring to arguments for the existence of God generally which I have found somewhat wanting.

PartSkeptic said Gods existence could be established by observation and deduction as I understand it. I don't think he actually mentioned the ontological argument.

Fudbucker does a nice balanced summary of fine tuning and its opposing multiverse hypothesis.

The "observation" I was referring to is that fact that many people claim to have experienced events that appear to have a supernatural explanation. My statement is a fact as I have crafted it.

It is not scientific proof, and is attacked on the basis that every single one of them has a "natural" explanation, no matter how difficult it may be to explain.

The "natural explanations" go so far as to to say that a person who is not on drugs, not disposed to mental aberrations, is not in an unusual or stressful situation, must have hallucinated. This is the ultimate denial.

As to deduction, I am referring to the fact that mankind is struggling to find a logical (not necessarily scientific) explanation for the origin of the universe and for the existence of intelligent life.

The theists claim that God is the prime cause on the basis of divine (supernatural) revelations, and claim that without God the world could not have survived the naturally hostile environment, and that it would not have had the propensity to form life. Prime cause comes down to "it just is".

The atheists claim that the laws of physics and the quantum field are the prime cause and have always existed and "just are". They suspend their wonder at how some energy field forms matter, then galaxies, then planets capable of forming life, and serendipitously has a "geologically quiet" period to maximize the evolution of human beings to the point we are today.

If I had only a few unremarkable supernatural events I would be rather conflicted as to which hypothesis to chose. However, I have had a number of them, and some are hard to explain without God (created by a Cosmic Intelligence).

The deductions I talk about are also a matter of applying logic to the many claims others have of the supernatural. There is much fraud and mistake. But once those are discounted then one has to look at a hypothesis of what is allowed and what is not allowed. This is not a scientific law or rule. It is figuring out the thought processes of the Cosmic Intelligence using observations of claims.

And to predict the response to my post by most atheists? "Bah - Humbug." Or, "if I do not experience a remarkable event, I refuse to acknowledge the possible existence of the supernatural. I can get by on the fact that 99.9999% or better for physical laws to take precedence is good enough for me."