Evolution Vs. God

AfterInfinity
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

Okay, here's what I'm going to ask you, and I'm asking you this for very specific reasons: in layman's terms, describe your premise and the basis for your argument. I get the feeling you are deliberately using flowery language in order to obscure the details of your case, thereby disguising the weaknesses of your argument so as to thwart the discerning minds of this thread.

So if you would kindly use PLAIN ENGLISH, I would appreciate it. Any refusal to do so will be acknowledged as an admission of the suspicions I've described above. I see no reason why you cannot comply.

Allow these premises:
That there are characteristics that constitute an appearance of design when taken together.
That these characteristics accompany every complex system that is known to man to be intelligently designed.
That these very characteristics are found in every nook and cranny of the universe that is described by the physical sciences.
That therefore the universe described by physical science has an appearance of design.

reply to post by mrphilosophias


And what are those characteristics? And are these determined by yourself to be of intelligent origin, or by scientific consensus?

AfterInfinity
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

And what are those characteristics?

mrphilosophias
complexity, intricacy, inter-connectedness, precision, an appearance of ingenuity in problem solving, and efficiency in efficacy

AfterInfinity
And are these determined by yourself to be of intelligent origin, or by scientific consensus?

I would argue it is self-evident that these are hall-marks of design, but as such science would agree these characteristics accompany complex systems that are known to be intelligently designed.

reply to post by mrphilosophias


Has it ever occurred to you that anything which does not adhere to those properties, including subatomic particles, is unlikely to survive long enough for us to discover it and take note? That's not to say it's impossible, that's to say that it never advanced beyond the most minute stage of development due to instability and therefore has almost entirely escaped our notice. It's possible that all sorts of strange phenomena are manifesting in contradiction to those properties and are dissolving within seconds or minutes of manifestation because their material instability cannot sustain coherence. We would never know because we would have to be far more ubiquitously aware in order to register such events.

As such, I would have to suggest that your argument is one out of ignorance. You have never witnessed an exception and therefore assume one does not exist. Likewise, everything we see around us right now exists precisely because matter takes the least path of resistance and tries every other path first. Which means that everything we see around us is not only a last resort, but also the only way it could have happened.

That's not design.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

Has it ever occurred to you that anything which does not adhere to those properties, including subatomic particles, is unlikely to survive long enough for us to discover it and take note?

Yes I have, and it is precisely my argument. That the physical Universe science describes abounds with the appearance of design.

reply to post by mrphilosophias

Yes I have, and it is precisely my argument. That the physical Universe science describes abounds with the appearance of design.

It appears you have missed my point entirely.

matter takes the least path of resistance and tries every other path first. Which means that everything we see around us is not only a last resort, but also the only way it could have happened.

That's my point. Matter is not intelligent, matter is molded by the properties of quantum physics. According to your reasoning, a happenstance universe would have devoured itself no matter how it turned out because the sheer arbitrary nature of the resulting particles and laws would invariably grow unstable and collapse. By what equations have you determined this to be the only possibility?

Also, I would like to mention something else. I find a particular significance in the so-called "Holy Trinity" because of this: Mind, Soul, Body. Quantum physics are the mind, energy is the soul, and matter is the body. Energy and matter are predisposed to the sort of entropic nature that would lead to instability and collapse, inevitably resulting in slush. But quantum physics, the canvas on which the universe is painted, is inherently possess of qualities that interact with both energy and matter to effectively produce an alternating process by which chaos and order take turns demolishing that which doesn't work and rebuilding that which does.

That has just as much to do with intelligent design as a puddle which fits perfectly inside a pothole. In other words, nothing at all.

AfterInfinity
it's possible that all sorts of strange phenomena are manifesting in contradiction to those properties and are dissolving within seconds or minutes of manifestation because their material instability cannot sustain coherence. We would never know because we would have to be far more ubiquitously aware in order to register such events.

It is possible that sub atomic purple flying elephants pop in an out of existence to without our noticing, but that don't make it so. Your counter argument is defined as something that is not known to exist. I need not point out why your rebuttal is impotent. I will remind you that word ignorant means to not know, and you accuse me of constructing arguments from ignorance:

AfterInfinity
As such, I would have to suggest that your argument is one out of ignorance. You have never witnessed an exception and therefore assume one does not exist.

AfterInfinity
Likewise, everything we see around us right now exists precisely because matter takes the least path of resistance and tries every other path first. Which means that everything we see around us is not only a last resort, but also the only way it could have happened.

I've already addressed the anthropic principle. As far as matter taking the path of least resistance please understand that the second law of thermodynamics states that the path of least resistance is increasing entropy. That there are pockets of increasing order in the chaotic universe science describes, anomalous pockets that yield miracles like bio diverse, sentient, and intelligent life, is precisely the sort of thing you wouldn't expect in a universe ignorant of itself.

AfterInfinity
That's not design.

I'm pretty sure it is. The reasons abound.

I have nothing further to add to this discussion. The fact that nobody else does either should tell you everything. When your god cares enough to come down and shake my hand, let me know. Until then, he can piss off. And until then, there's no point to you arguing in favor of his existence because if he does exist, he's single-handedly responsible for the fecal festival this world is rolling around in.

I hope you're proud.

I'm pretty sure it is. The reasons abound.

Then you should become the richest man in the world after convincing the board of top-dollar scientists that you're right. But you won't. Because you don't dare show your face with this essay in hand. The greatest proof of validity is professional affirmation.

AfterInfinity
I have nothing further to add to this discussion. The fact that nobody else does either should tell you everything. When your god cares enough to come down and shake my hand, let me know. Until then, he can piss off. And until then, there's no point to you arguing in favor of his existence because if he does exist, he's single-handedly responsible for the fecal festival this world is rolling around in.

I hope you're proud.

I'm pretty sure it is. The reasons abound.

Then you should become the richest man in the world after convincing the board of top-dollar scientists that you're right. But you won't. Because you don't dare show your face with this essay in hand. The greatest proof of validity is professional affirmation.

edit on 23-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Could you point me in the direction of that board? Science in and of itself is futile, it is constitutionally incapable of addressing these questions without philosophy. Some scientists make great philosophers, and others terrible minds. Science is not the ultimate authority. That would be God. Contrary to your line of thought He is not dead. Suppose He did care enough to come down for you, would you tell Him piss off, or would you kiss His feet? Would you believe, or would you ask for a miracle? If you would ask for a miracle, would you believe?

reply to post by mrphilosophias

Could you point me in the direction of that board?

If you need my help to find Google, you have bigger problems than proving God.

Science is not the ultimate authority. That would be God.

And yet no one sees priests jumping out of airplanes without parachutes. Surely God would save them from the science of gravity? I guess they don't think so.

Contrary to your line of thought He is not dead. Suppose He did care enough to come down for you, would you tell Him piss off, or would you kiss His feet? Would you believe, or would you ask for a miracle? If you would ask for a miracle, would your believe?

If I answer that question honestly, I will probably be banned. Suffice it to say that if he does exist, and he does come down to me, and he does demand that I serve him or be damned for all of eternity, then I will probably be sent straight to Hell for my response...if he lives long enough to send me there, that is.

As once spoken by Patrick Henry: "Give me liberty or give me death!"

Or in the more passionate verbiage of Braveheart:



I will defend my life, liberty, and right to happiness to my death...or his. There is no point to existing otherwise. I have a heart to feel with, a brain to think with, and feet to stand with. And I will use these things as I see fit. A life lived against my wishes is a life not worth living.

reply to post by mrphilosophias

Allow these premises: That there are characteristics that constitute an appearance of design when taken together. That these characteristics accompany every complex system that is known to man to be intelligently designed. That these very characteristics are found in every nook and cranny of the universe that is described by the physical sciences. That therefore the universe described by physical science has an appearance of design.

What possible use can the a priori assumption of design have for understanding how a particular natural phenomenon works? Assuming design in everthing a priori serves no practical purpose.

Demonstrate that ID is scientific. Show us the method, the rules, for differentiating design from non-design.

You say yourself by your quote above, "there are characteristics that constitute an appearance of design" is what you assume it is, not something for which you can devise a set of rules to differentiate from obvious disorder or naturally occurring phenomenon.
If you disagree, just provide a set of rules to identify these "characteristics." If it is so obvious it should be easy for you to do.

Science has a methodologies for working with evidence to build hypotheses, models, and theories. ID has demonstrated no methodology for detecting or determining design. Can you provide the method for determining what is designed and what is not designed? I would love to see your model, it would be a first for me.

reply to post by mrphilosophias


Being that we are made up with the same atoms that make up the rest of our physical universe, we are not separate from it, but woven into it. The term "intelligence" is arbitrary, as that seems to be all there is. There is really no such thing as non-intelligence to compare to. Without getting deeply philosophical, we can say that even something like a rock is made up of atoms that "know" their place. It seems as though "intelligence" is a fundamental characteristic, and because we "intelligently design," it is, at the most basic level, the universe designing itself. So if you want to claim that the universe is intelligent, that would be fine. But to claim that we were designed by something outside of the physical universe is absurd when all the rules of design are intimately a part of the universe's most basic characteristics. No "God" required. Unless you want to consider the universe, and by proxy, us, God?

We already established that even topic name is incorrect.

Evolution is proven theory.

It has nothing with question if there is or there is no God.

Intelligent Design on other hand is not scientific approach as it is not based on facts, but in actual inability of religion to explain diversity of life on earth. Easy answer for all question - it was designed that way.

As Christopher Hitchen has mentioned in his book, his religious teacher has told him that God created nature in colors easy for eyes... without ability to explain what about deserts and polar surface... Was that designed to hurt our eyes?

reply to post by flyingfish

Demonstrate that ID is scientific. Show us the method, the rules, for differentiating design from non-design.

This is what he has given me:

complexity, intricacy, inter-connectedness, precision, an appearance of ingenuity in problem solving, and efficiency in efficacy

That's from one of his previous posts. These properties are apparently powerful indicators of intelligent origin.

flyingfish
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

Allow these premises: That there are characteristics that constitute an appearance of design when taken together. That these characteristics accompany every complex system that is known to man to be intelligently designed. That these very characteristics are found in every nook and cranny of the universe that is described by the physical sciences. That therefore the universe described by physical science has an appearance of design.

What possible use can the a priori assumption of design have for understanding how a particular natural phenomenon works? Assuming design in everthing a priori serves no practical purpose.

Demonstrate that ID is scientific. Show us the method, the rules, for differentiating design from non-design.

You say yourself by your quote above, "there are characteristics that constitute an appearance of design" is what you assume it is, not something for which you can devise a set of rules to differentiate from obvious disorder or naturally occurring phenomenon.
If you disagree, just provide a set of rules to identify these "characteristics." If it is so obvious it should be easy for you to do.

Science has a methodologies for working with evidence to build hypotheses, models, and theories. ID has demonstrated no methodology for detecting or determining design. Can you provide the method for determining what is designed and what is not designed? I would love to see your model, it would be a first for me.

These characteristics can be derived from the set of all complex systems known to be designed. The previous post lists some of them.

reply to post by mrphilosophias


Can you prove that these characteristics are exclusively the product of intelligent design and could not possibly result from centuries of autonomous trial and error?

flyingfish
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

Allow these premises: That there are characteristics that constitute an appearance of design when taken together. That these characteristics accompany every complex system that is known to man to be intelligently designed. That these very characteristics are found in every nook and cranny of the universe that is described by the physical sciences. That therefore the universe described by physical science has an appearance of design.

What possible use can the a priori assumption of design have for understanding how a particular natural phenomenon works? Assuming design in everthing a priori serves no practical purpose.

My challenge is not an a priori approach. The arguments I have presented begin by examining evidences gleaned from the physical Universe by science.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

Can you prove that these characteristics are exclusively the product of intelligent design and could not possibly result from centuries of autonomous trial and error?

edit on 24-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

The real question is can you give me proof of a complex system known not to be designed that accomplishes some critical objective and possesses these attributes?

mrphilosophias

AfterInfinity
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

Can you prove that these characteristics are exclusively the product of intelligent design and could not possibly result from centuries of autonomous trial and error?

edit on 24-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

The real question is can you give me proof of a complex system known not to be designed that accomplishes some critical objective and possesses these attributes?

edit on 24-9-2013 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-9-2013 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)

That sure is an interesting counter argument.

I wonder if its a logical fallacy?

mrphilosophias

AfterInfinity
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

Can you prove that these characteristics are exclusively the product of intelligent design and could not possibly result from centuries of autonomous trial and error?

edit on 24-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

The real question is can you give me proof of a complex system known not to be designed that accomplishes some critical objective and possesses these attributes?

edit on 24-9-2013 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-9-2013 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)

Come on, I think you know better, or at least should know better, that absence of proof isn't proof of absence. You are the one making the claims and thus the onus is upon you to provide evidence that humans are designed by some higher state if consciousness. It's not up to someone else to provide evidence for our own thesis.