It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That is exactly the point. However, modern science likes to pretend that they already know the answers to everything, and when someone has questions, they are put in a religious box for no apparent reason and ignore the questions completely.
Originally posted by Barcs
Originally posted by vasaga
Exactly. That's the biggest issue people have here.. They are so hateful towards religion that they fail to see that the 'designer' doesn't even have to be a religious God. One could also simply conclude that nature itself is intelligent. Or it could lead to a perspective of the biocentric universe, and there are more possibilities. People's grudges towards religion blind them from the possibilities.
Or people could just admit they don't know the answer and that further study needs to be done before making a conclusion one way or another?
It's not really about beliefs. It's about logic. Things are really simple. We take that we have intelligence as a given, and obviously we are part of nature. Either nature creates and therefore is and even transcends intelligence, or we transcend nature since we have intelligence and nature doesn't. There isn't room for anything else. But of course, ignoring consciousness and intelligence is the easiest way to explain things (away)...
Originally posted by Barcs
If you are looking for god or universal intelligence everywhere, you are going to find it. Everyone's got personal beliefs, they just don't always include an intelligent designer. Don't judge everything by its appearance.
Originally posted by vasaga
That is exactly the point. However, modern science likes to pretend that they already know the answers to everything, and when someone has questions, they are put in a religious box for no apparent reason and ignore the questions completely.
Originally posted by vasaga
It's not really about beliefs. It's about logic. Things are really simple. We take that we have intelligence as a given, and obviously we are part of nature. Either nature creates and therefore is and even transcends intelligence, or we transcend nature since we have intelligence and nature doesn't. There isn't room for anything else. But of course, ignoring consciousness and intelligence is the easiest way to explain things (away)...
And I'm not the only one that thinks that way. Not that that's a sound argument on itself, but, read this, and make up your own mind.
An Algorithmic Challenge to Atheism
Originally posted by Ghost375
But there has to be a design that allows for their formation. If water didn't have the properties it has, water couldn't freeze, and there'd be no snowflakes.
There's obviously intelligent design in the universe....but that doesn't mean evolution is wrong nor does it mean Christianity is correct..
Here's an example I just posted today.
Originally posted by Barcs
By modern science, do you mean scientists of today? I've never seen one pretend to know all the answers.
The achievements of science can not be called into question. However, trying to find the answer to 'everything' is pretty impossible when things like awareness and information are assumed to be materialistic rather than actually investigated.
Originally posted by Barcs
Their purpose to TRY to find the answers to "everything". Science has helped us learn a huge amount of information that effects our daily lives in a positive way.
The fact that you think science is completely independent from philosophy is really disappointing. Science uses philosophy constantly. Philosophy gave birth to science, and every single time you need to interpret data, there is no other way than philosophy. And if you really think there is any other option than the ones I proposed above, I'll be glad to hear them.
Originally posted by Barcs
The issue is that many creationists and ID advocates attack science with false information, or claim their personal opinion of intelligent design is fact. That is when you see science supporters strike back. The questions are not ignored, they are often based on personal opinion, so it cannot hold scientific merit, which sets us this point perfectly:
Originally posted by vasaga
It's not really about beliefs. It's about logic. Things are really simple. We take that we have intelligence as a given, and obviously we are part of nature. Either nature creates and therefore is and even transcends intelligence, or we transcend nature since we have intelligence and nature doesn't. There isn't room for anything else. But of course, ignoring consciousness and intelligence is the easiest way to explain things (away)...
Where is the logic? That has nothing to do with any type of scientific fact whatsoever. You are philosophizing, which proves my point.
Kind of funny, how you say I'm philosophizing, and not being logical, while the thing that's at the center of philosophy is logic. And the fact that there can be such a thing as philosophy of science, means that philosophy transcends science. For the record, let me quote from Wikipedia what philosophy is:
Originally posted by Barcs
It is a personal belief. It is your interpretation. It's cool, it's just not scientific, or logical.
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3]
You're acting as if knowledge and belief are two completely different things. Aside from that, things like materialism are also beliefs.
Originally posted by Barcs
The problem is most ID advocates will not admit that there is but one real FACT in this situation. The fact that we don't yet know the answer and ID is a belief. The questions about transcending nature cannot be answered without absolute knowledge of the universe.
Which would that be exactly?
Originally posted by Barcs
It only took a few lines before the fallacies came pouring in.
The same reason it's hard for you to see that materialism is a belief.
Originally posted by Barcs
I have no problem whatsoever with your beliefs, they are yours and you are welcome to them. I just don't see why it's so hard to see that it is a faith based belief.
Originally posted by vasaga
Here's an example I just posted today.
Originally posted by Barcs
By modern science, do you mean scientists of today? I've never seen one pretend to know all the answers.
Click
The achievements of science can not be called into question. However, trying to find the answer to 'everything' is pretty impossible when things like awareness and information are assumed to be materialistic rather than actually investigated.
The fact that you think science is completely independent from philosophy is really disappointing. Science uses philosophy constantly. Philosophy gave birth to science, and every single time you need to interpret data, there is no other way than philosophy. And if you really think there is any other option than the ones I proposed above, I'll be glad to hear them.
Kind of funny, how you say I'm philosophizing, and not being logical, while the thing that's at the center of philosophy is logic. And the fact that there can be such a thing as philosophy of science, means that philosophy transcends science. For the record, let me quote from Wikipedia what philosophy is:
Originally posted by Barcs
You're acting as if knowledge and belief are two completely different things. Aside from that, things like materialism are also beliefs.
Originally posted by BarcsWhich would that be exactly?
It only took a few lines before the fallacies came pouring in.
Originally posted by BarcsThe same reason it's hard for you to see that materialism is a belief.
I have no problem whatsoever with your beliefs, they are yours and you are welcome to them. I just don't see why it's so hard to see that it is a faith based belief.
The problem is most ID advocates will not admit that there is but one real FACT in this situation. The fact that we don't yet know the answer and ID is a belief.
Originally posted by dusty1
I may not understand how something was made.
I do recognize its usefulness
and appreciate the creative genius behind the design.
Could you please direct me to the screws and components to the moon? I'd like to take it apart and inspect the design, maybe throw in some upgrades.
There is a logical flaw in comparing naturally occurring phenomena to man made technology. It's pure assumption and nothing more.
Originally posted by dusty1
I may not understand how something was made.
and appreciate the creative genius behind the design.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by jiggerj
I don't know why we need a supernatural being in order to stand in amazement beneath the night sky.
It's right there in your face. Your failure to understand the point is a sign of your blindness.
Originally posted by Barcs
Okay, you post a link to an article about free will and the brain. Where is the scientist pretending to know everything?
Aren't they? Awareness is presumed to be generated by the brain, and information is presumed to be possible to arise from inanimate matter, or purely physical properties, even though there is no evidence for it.
Originally posted by Barcs
Awareness and information are assumed to be materialistic?
We have information science, but it's completely neglected when it comes to things like biology, where they constantly violate the rules of information science. So no, it's not investigated and implemented as it should be.
Originally posted by Barcs
They aren't investigated?
You're saying there are no taboos or limits in science?
Originally posted by Barcs
EVERYTHING is investigated in science.
You think I'm proposing intelligent design in the sense that some man with a beard we call God made the universe. That is not the case. Your whole reply is a full-blown strawman
Originally posted by Barcs
None of this offers factual information regarding intelligent design.
Ok. Tell me where the evidence is that you yourself are aware. Should I conclude you don't exist? Jokes aside, for there to be evidence, one has to look for it first, instead of dismissing things beforehand. Don't tell me that doesn't happen in science, because it does.
Originally posted by Barcs
If evidence for something does not exist in science, they do not factor it into the equations and experiments.
That only shows the scientific limit.
Originally posted by BarcsIt's that simple. Let's assume that consciousness is powered by the stars. Why isn't that investigated or used in experiments? It is not testable, therefor is not scientific.
What part of 'philosophy is used in science' don't you understand? Every interpretation of any evidence is philosophy. Philosophy invented the scientific method in the first place. And detecting fallacies is possible because of philosophy. Tough luck that you don't like philosophy, but every time you accuse someone of a fallacy, you are using it.
Originally posted by Barcs
Philosophy is not science and not any indicator whatsoever of truth.
Philosophy is not independent of empiricism. Science is basically empirical philosophy, and since it's a branch of it, it's by default more limited.
Originally posted by Barcs
That's the bottom line. Objective evidence matters.
What a pathetic low blow of an argument. I'm expressing problems with your views, not expressing my faith. But what else can be expected? You are known for doing this. Assigning all the baggage, being unable to have a proper conversation. Too busy pretending you already know what others think.
Originally posted by Barcs
If rational thought is required by philosophy, then I apologize, you were not philosophizing, you were guessing and expressing your faith.
No. Knowledge is a belief that conforms to so-called reality.
Originally posted by Barcs
They ARE 2 different things.
Knowledge is what we know. You don't say. Great insight right there. I love how you phrased it. Let me rephrase it for you. Knowledge is belief that's based on what we have verified to be true through experimentation. Better, right?
Originally posted by Barcs
Equating them is silly. Knowledge is based on what we know to be true based on experimentation.
That's how you define it, so you can degrade others in your arguments. A belief is something that someone accepts as true or real, and it can fall within knowledge or not.
Originally posted by Barcs
Belief is what you personally think about your own existence based on emotional connection or deep rooted morality. Belief in a higher intelligence? Yes, it's a belief unless there are facts to back it up.
What else could it be?
Originally posted by Barcs
It isn't an either or scenario between: "Intelligence did it" and "random processes did it".
Great science of the gaps argument.. While you're known to accuse people of the God of the gaps argument. Hypocrite much.
Originally posted by Barcs
That is a very one dimensional way of thinking. Perhaps the answer is too complex for us to understand.
Yeah, like what I proposed above that you're dancing around to avoid like the plague.
Originally posted by Barcs
Perhaps its so simple we don't see it staring us in the face.