Intelligent Design

[Pixel42]

You used to post something reasonable (but often incorrect). Now you intersperse your posts with mockery and negative hyperbole. Sign of some-one losing the debate?

Sign of frustration in the presence of know nothing know it alls who refuse to learn.

No mention of any hypothesis of why the universe started out the way it did.

Case in point.

Apart from mathematical theory, is there any evidence whatsoever that multiverses exist?

No.

Do you not think that it is an attempt to give an alternative (but fanciful) hypothesis to respond to the FACT that our universe is not only incredibly complex but beautifully "designed" with everything "just right" and with the constants and equations all in harmony and fine tuned?

No.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Asked and answered; no, there isn't. Now, in response, is there any evidence that the universe could have existed in a different form that would not have allowed life to emerge?

Dave

I am willing to accept that God might not exist, as well as the possibility that he might. We have no proof and no evidence. We have clues and logic both ways.

Now are you willing to admit that there might be a God, or are you certain that God cannot and does not exist?

 

[Peregrinus]

... respond to the FACT that our universe is not only incredibly complex but beautifully "designed" with everything "just right" and with the constants and equations all in harmony and fine tuned?

You mistake inference for fact.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's the same, one, and only game.

God Spackle.

Creationism: How did A happen?
Science: Because of B.
Creationism: Ah so how did B happen?
Science: Because of C.
Creationism: Ah so how did C happen?
Science: Well we don't know yet.
Creationism: HA! GOD DID IT!
Science: Well no, all we know that we don't yet have have a working theory as to....
Creationism: NOPE! GOD DID IT!

 

[Peregrinus]

I am willing to accept that God might not exist, as well as the possibility that he might. We have no proof and no evidence. We have clues and logic both ways.

There is no logic in theism of any stripe.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If God wishes to remain hidden then nothing you can do will change that. If someone accidentally proves the existence of God that event can be nullified by God and any history of it removed.

Sounds very Stalinist. Might be a good idea not to try too hard to win this argument then.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Now are you willing to admit that there might be a God, or are you certain that God cannot and does not exist?

I think the question is irrelevant.

Dave

 

[MikeG]

..See if you can find anyone, anywhere on this board, who has ever claimed that atheists are, as a result of evolution, better* than anyone else. If you can't, then it would be really decent of you to withdraw this statement.

*There is no such thing, evolution-wise.

I see you have ignored this, PS. You've made a claim, been called on it, and are pretending nothing has happened. How about you deal with this before you move on to the next bit of gish galloping.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

At one point abiogenesis seemed to be quite easy. Now it seems that it is incredibly complex, requiring multiple scenarios in just the right sequence. So far, beyond science.

Actually, the difficulty lies in discovering which of the many many possible ways life on earth took.

But even if they achieve it, can one prove that God did not decide to make/allow the experiment to work by adding a little bit of soul/spirit to the mix?

Reproducing life is not proof of God. If God wishes to remain hidden then nothing you can do will change that. If someone accidentally proves the existence of God that event can be nullified by God and any history of it removed.

The ID crowd support their belief with personal experience - self and others.

Ah, so the god of the gaps argument. So ID is a philosophy, not science. Nice to know we agree there.

 

[Meadmaker]

I am willing to accept that God might not exist, as well as the possibility that he might. We have no proof and no evidence. We have clues and logic both ways.

Now are you willing to admit that there might be a God, or are you certain that God cannot and does not exist?

For my part, I really like the Buddha's answer on the existence of God.

(For those not familiar, his answer was basically, "It doesn't matter, because the very concept is beyond your comprehension." He was a "hard agnostic". i.e one who believed that the answer to the question about the existence of God is inherently unknowable.)



Which is all very well, until people start claiming that they can answer the question based on observations of the universe or, even more absurdly, based on their personal experiences.

 

[Donn]

Which is all very well, until people start claiming that they can answer the question based on observations of the universe or, even more absurdly, based on their personal experiences.

Yeah, the delicate logics with which God is spun are soon strong ropes for binding any agin.

 

[Fudbucker]

My, my, I have seemed to have stirred up the collective. Perhaps some of you will channel that energy into brushing up on science and math.

My work in this thread is done.

 

[Peregrinus]

Perhaps some of you will channel that energy into brushing up on science and math.

Somewhat lacking in self-awareness are we?

 

[MikeG]

.........Perhaps some of you will channel that energy into brushing up on ......... math.......

Says the guy who has no idea of probability. Classic.

 

[Thor 2]

I'm taking a moment to marvel at someone who has demonstrated themselves to be utterly clueless about probability theory advising someone who has demonstrated themselves to be very knowledgeable to educate themselves, then another to marvel at someone who has demonstrated themselves to be equally clueless congratulating the first clueless person.

All done.

Nominated.

I find myself somewhat spellbound also. Perhaps a mathematical truth is hidden in here: - x - = +

 

[Thor 2]

For my part, I really like the Buddha's answer on the existence of God.

(For those not familiar, his answer was basically, "It doesn't matter, because the very concept is beyond your comprehension." He was a "hard agnostic". i.e one who believed that the answer to the question about the existence of God is inherently unknowable.)



Which is all very well, until people start claiming that they can answer the question based on observations of the universe or, even more absurdly, based on their personal experiences.

"Hard agnostic" I like that.

To believe the existence or not of God is unknowable, but certain that it will remain unknowable.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Apart from mathematical theory, is there any evidence whatsoever that multiverses exist? Do you not think that it is an attempt to give an alternative (but fanciful) hypothesis to respond to the FACT that our universe is not only incredibly complex but beautifully "designed" with everything "just right" and with the constants and equations all in harmony and fine tuned?

Bob has been rolling dice all day long. Thousands of times he's rolled his handful of 6 dice. He's come up with all sorts of combinations and scores, all throughout the day.

You walk along, and see that he has rolled a set with 1,2,2,3,3,6. That's your grandmother's birthday - December 23, 1936! It has special meaning to you.

How amazing is the FACT that these dice are perfectly representative of your grandmother's date of birth! It must be by design!

You haven't observed the tens of thousands of tosses that Bob threw before you showed up. You don't stick around to observe the tens of thousands he'll toss after you leave. You happened upon one specific observation... and from that you concluded that the dice were specially designed just for your enjoyment.

The fact that a particular combination has occurred does not in any fashion provide information regarding what other combinations could have occurred, nor doe sit in any way imply that the specifically observed combination is in any fashion "special", let alone "designed".


ETA: I'ts kind of like being amazed by the "skill" of the middle-schooler tossing a basketball over his shoulder and making a basket from the other end of the court. Never mind that he actually spend 7 hours trying that same move over and over, and deleting all the videos of his failures. You see the one success and conclude that he is just wicked skilled, yo! Totally amazing!

 

[Emily's Cat]

At one point abiogenesis seemed to be quite easy.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed it was easy.

Now it seems that it is incredibly complex, requiring multiple scenarios in just the right sequence. So far, beyond science.

So far, it's been beyond the few dozen years that we've been giving it a go... in contrast to the hundreds of millions of years that nature and chaos had in which to monkey it together.

But even if they achieve it, can one prove that God did not decide to make/allow the experiment to work by adding a little bit of soul/spirit to the mix?

Reproducing life is not proof of God. If God wishes to remain hidden then nothing you can do will change that. If someone accidentally proves the existence of God that event can be nullified by God and any history of it removed.

The ID crowd support their belief with personal experience - self and others.

Nobody can prove to you that your belief is anything other than belief. And nobody can prove to you that it wasn't actually the tooth fair in collusion with Freya that breathed life into that jelly bean and created mold.

 

[Emily's Cat]

"Hard agnostic" I like that.

To believe the existence or not of God is unknowable, but certain that it will remain unknowable.

Does that make me a "tough atheist"? I believe that the existence of god is irrelevant.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Does that make me a "tough atheist"? I believe that the existence of god is irrelevant.

To be fair, if something like the Christian God existed, that would be relevant. However, I see such a being as basically a work of fiction, and in the total absence of any compelling evidence I see no particular importance in the question of whether this particular work of fiction is or is not true.

Dave