Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific "design" can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
And the field of Physics that completely eliminates the notion of intelligent design is quantum mechanics. It tells us that the universe and reality as we know it is just a illusion, the history of the universe is just a version of many possible histories the reason we observe the universe to be the way it is just a matter of probability, it is just a small part of a much larger picture the multiverse
@SShamit1 With respect everything you just said is speculation.Even Penrose stated that Hawkins mutiverse theory is not even a theory.It is nothing more than a collection of ideas according to Penrose.
We still know so little about quantum physics that we have no business drawing any conclusions at least not yet.
@pestmanpat Hawkings M-theory is based on super-string theory and the center of which is universe is the ultimate result of the laws of physics, god is unnecessary. the multiverse I mention is that of Evertt's Many World Interpretation, which is backed up by a considerable amount of evidence. Quantum Mechanics is mature enough to draw conclusions from and use as a tool of scientific methodology, we even use it in our technology
Second Intelligent design hinges on the idea of a ''perfect universe where laws are fine tuned to allow life''. Considering 99% of the universe would kill life instantly and how the elements of the periodic table account for only 1% of our universe and also how strict the requirements of life is one can realize that existence of life is a rare event, nothing about our universe seems to be perfect or designed when one considers the bigger picture of things
i think u assumed that we cant know anything outside the creation of our universe, this is false in fact by observing the universe and event that created it we have some very good idea of the possible Multiverses, Parallel Realities etc.
@SShamit1 This is funny .It seems i have made a video on every point you make to answer your point on how much we really can expect to know watch ''Intelligent design or blind chance.Why a default position?
Einstein never concluded the that the universe was designed, he rejected all notion of a personal god and the scriptures, he said if a god does exist it would be something like Spinoza's god so he was something of a pantheist
@SShamit1 Watch my video ''the truth about Einstein'' He believed in intelligent design no doubt.He was agnostic as to to the nature of the designer but he rejected mans interpretations of who God is.
Alrite, Newton was in the time period of 17th and 18th century, a genius who invented calculus on a dare, and he was very religious and a pious christian but he invoked intelligent design only once in his lifetime it was when he failed to explain the stability of the planetary orbit, he concluded ''it is the work of god'' only time Scientists in history have invoked intelligent design was out of their failure and lack of knowledge of their time
Everywhere! In fact if you go through medical text books you will often find the word ''Designed''.I have already shown you Einsteins conclusions of the design of the universe.As i said earlier both world views have valid arguments and respected atheists will admit to this.As soon as an atheist tries to compare Intelligent design to mythology and flying spaghetti monsters they lose credibility in my opinion.
...I think that's the fun part though. I think it would be kind of boring if we did know everything. There would be nothing left to explore and no more discoveries to be made. Our differing ideas can bring out the best or the worst in people. I happened to think it should bring us together instead of attacking each other and from what I've seen of your videos I think you would agree.
@bryan23271 Yes i agree.Also consider this.When Newton developed his ideas on physical laws he did so with the preconception that the universe was designed.Imagine if modern science tried the same thing.
@pestmanpat Im curious to know how you came to the conclusion of a designer rather than a more naturalistic explanation. Is it because of the apparent order of the universe or because of the question of why the laws of physics are the way that they are. Or perhaps something else.
As for the question, can we safely say that we have a clear understanding of how it all began or that we can assume a universe without a plan or design as our default position. I would have to say no. There really is no default position to an unknown other than we don't know. All we really have is a collection of competing ideas of how the universe began or if it had a begining. We are all in the same boat, in that we are trying to figure it all out. Theist or Atheist. continued...
I happen to agree with alot of what you said about our place in time and space. There is still much to learn about our universe and how it all began. I think you were saying that we are much like those people looking at the horizon all those years ago. The only difference is that our horizon is much bigger now. I would agree. Our understanding is limited to our current knowledge of the universe the same way it was for them back then.
You make a good point Pat. As you know, I do not believe the universe is billions of yrs old -- because science and God's Word both tell us otherwise. Check out the video series titled Scientific Materialism Is Falsified - Dr. Werner Gitt. It verifies the designer with the laws of nature regarding information. We only have to look at the world around us to know there is a creator! We don't even need science or the Bible to know it, in fact.
Why do people think of God as a magic man in the sky. The bible says that God created the material universe with his dynamic energy, the bible stated that thousands of years before humans figured out that matter is made from energy. God used science and his limitless energy and intelligence when he caused the universe
Evolution has been demonstrated to be true, and ID has been demonstrated to be false. ID is about evolution BTW, not the origin of the universe. Can you rule out an intelligence creating the universe? No, but it has as much evidence as a giant bunny, or a tiny balpoint pen doing it. So by default it is not considered because there is no evidence for it. Science only deals with that for which there is good evidence. Everything else is irrelevant to science, including the claims of religions.
As you know, I am nobodies atheist... I agree with you that the universe was the product of a designer... that being said I do not think that ID should be taught in Science class... why? Simply that it is not science. it is a philosophical stance, not a scientific one.
@RationalRoundtable Thanks for commenting.I haven't suggested ID be taught in schools here.I am suggesting science take a serious look into ID.But since you mentioned it i do agree with those who seek to include ID as a hypothesis along side evolution.Neither should be presented as fact.Science is testable predictable and observable.As an example how this applies think about Junk DNA.theistic scientists predicted that supposed junk DNA would be found to have function as far back as 1994.
I think that the reason most evolutionary biologists do not treat ID seriously is that it serves no useful purpose in the scientific arena. The various studies contained within evolution have made predictions as to the mutation of viruses, genetic defects, etc. all ID does is suppose that there is a purpose behind it which makes no viable predictions nor give us any scientifically useful insight.
@RationalRoundtable You may be right.But for those who are more interested in answers to these big questions than scientific advancement it is of benefit.finding evidence for design in DNA for example confirms faith in a creator not through scripture but through science and there will be some who reject
religion but come to a realization that ID of some kind is plausible based on these kinds of discoveries.
For some it is a first step.Anthony Flew springs to mind.
@TeaDbluJay Hi mate.Have not heard from you in some time.There is a rape and two men are suspects.one is taken in for questioning and his DNA is taken.The other guy fell into a volcano and there are no other sources to obtain a sample of his DNA.Does that mean that he can not be taken as a serious suspect ?
Is it better to only focus on the other guy simply because he is available for testing ?
@pestmanpat What is it about the religious that causes them to almost always offer such lame analogies? Focus on the available evidence and follow it where ever it leads.
@TeaDbluJay Richard dawkins gave an analogy when describing how science works in reconstructing evolutionary pathways.He compared it to a detective at the scene of a crime.He claimed that in the absence of a suspect to observe and test the detective would look for other evidence to suggest who whodunnit.I dont think my analogy is any different. I agree with you that we should Focus on the available evidence and follow it where ever it leads.And that is precisely my beef .cont-
@TeaDbluJay In the past 2000 years what have we learn t that has changed our natural beliefs based on cause and effect to believing the universe has no designer at all.We know that a flying spagetti monster is illogical but what have we learned that tells us to disregard intelligent design altogether ? Remember that religion and ID do not necessarily go hand in hand.One does not need to accept every religious doctrine or holy book to accept ID.Einstein was a great example of this.
@pestmanpat if the two men are suspects it's because police have evidence other than DNA to point to them. Even if there was no DNA at all, you could still judge the merits of other evidence. If that evidence stands even without DNA, then you say you have your (now dead) culprit. If not, the dead man is vindicated. Either way, you go where the evidence leads you. I hope you agree the justice system should work only with actual evidence, not faith?
@LynxChan Yes I agree and for me there ''are"' other kinds of evidences that strongly suggest ID in the workings of the universe.True we cant see past the first event but we can see after it at least from a small vantage point.
What kind of evidence would we be looking for if we were looking for evidence of design ?
"What kind of evidence would we be looking for if we were looking for evidence of design ?"
This is where you, and all IDist's fall down. You do NOT start with a goal in mind. You look at what you see, "the evidence", and make conclusions from it. You start with a clean slate. If you start with the design paradigm you will see it in every thing. The facts are that nothing we see needs a designer.
"god did it" (ID) is not an answer, it explains anything and everything.
@pestmanpat the problem with that question is that if you allow for what amounts to magic then you will never be able to distinguish:
A- Something designed by a supernatural being
B- Something designed by a vastly superior alien intelligence
C- Something completely natural, but for which we still do not understand the cause
This renders the question unscientific. Not being able to imagine how something could come about naturally does not make the default assumption a supernatural origin (cont.)
@LynxChan (cont.) When you don't know or can't even imagine how something came to be the scientific response is to say "I don't know" not "Well it must be god then". If science took the first route, we would never have figured out evolution, gravitation, germ theory or much of anything else. As it stands we know an extraordinary amount about the Universe and we're working on the rest. Throwing up your hands and saying "this is too hard, it must be God" is a surrender, not an answer.
Just to correct a couple of things. It's billions of stars in the Milky way and billions of galaxies in the known universe, not millions.
Next up, "fine tuning" is not evidence of ID. Scientists don't give any serious consideration to ID exactly because there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest it.
From a personal perspective I find the "fine tuning" argument to be about the weakest there is for the existence of a sky fairy, whatever flavor.
@tirua100 “The harmony of natural law…reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”~Albert Einstein
In light of these quotes form Einstein and Hawking i fail to see how you could say such a thing.
Random quotes from prominent atheists taken out of context are completely meaningless. If you do not wish to link to the full quote so that context can be seen, don't bother. I don't really mean to be rude but I know no other way of putting it, random quotes are meaningless. Those 2 did not find "fine tuning" a compelling argument.
I repeat
apparent "fine tuning" of the universe is one of the weakest arguments for a god and does not rate as evidence for one.
@tirua100 Watch my videos ''the truth about EINSTEIN"' and the truth about Steven hawking''
It does not rate as evidence according to who ?If we did a world poll what would be the result.And if you want to just dismiss every vote that does not agree with yours then by what authority can you do that ?
Einstein and Hawking were/are atheists so I can conclude that they don't find the fine tuning argument to be overly convincing.Of late I have noted that Hawking has stated that a sky fairy is not needed to explain the universe, how do you correlate those comments with what you are saying?
"It does not rate as evidence according to who?"
According to Hawking and Einstein and the vast majority of other scientists from the last hundred years.
@tirua100 First point can you show me where i can find Hawking referring to God as a sky fairy.Second please watch my videos on Hawking and Einstein.Einstein states he is not an atheist.
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth." cont....
Sorry about the detogatory terms, I don't mean them to upset. I find the notion of "god(s)" to be so absurd that I struggle to type "God" or "gods" as it would tend to lend creadence to the idea of believing in ancient myths, at which point I would ask "Which myth?"
Your basic question in this video is why scientists don't give ID a "go". I'll repeat the reason "god did it" is a completely useless theory. It simply can't be predictive, unless you wish to predict goblins and ghosts.
@tirua100 God did it is not any kind of explanation i would give.The full accusation is ''we dont know therefore God did it''. This is a straw man argument.You see i dont know how God created the universe or how he could exist in a frame work in which there is no time.cont-
"You see i dont know how God created the universe or how he could exist in a frame work in which there is no time" - the bit about how he could exist is the interesting part, and indeed the no time thing has always been an interesting one for me. You need to answer those because "apparant design" does not equate to a higher being Also, why are you so sure that you designer is "God"? why is it not Zuess? What evidence do you have that it is the christian myth that is true? Arrogance?
@tirua100 Have i identified my God here ?I am speaking only of intelligent design.One can not argue the identity of God in a scientific forum only the evidence for design.
"You see i dont know how God created the universe"
I would say that reference to "God" is reference to your "god". If not you should write "how a god(s)..".
It is clear that you are referencing the god of the bible.
Either way it is pointless. I usually refer to these mythical beings as "sky fairies/wizards" or some such (to me it more inclusive) but have tried not to since you don't like it, maybe I should revert back
All a bit of a pointless distraction. There is only apparant design in the universe, design that you would expect if the universe and life came from naturalistic causes. There is nothing that implies an intellegent "designer", or at least not a particularly good designer.
If you can, imagine that life came into existence naturally. What would you expect to see in regards to design?
@tirua100 ''apparent'' design is a matter of opinion isn't it ? So long as you and i can cite highly educated people such as Einstein,Dawkins,Tyson,Craige,Lennox and Hawking it will always be a matter of opinion.
RE: If you can, imagine that life came into existence naturally. What would you expect to see in regards to design?
I would expect you and i would not be having this conversation because no life would ever have arose.
"I would expect you and i would not be having this conversation because no life would ever have arose."
That's a piss pore response. You know damn well what you would see, you're just showing that you really are just an ignorant creationist and you "questions" are pointless because you will continually ignore anything you don't like.
"''apparent'' design is a matter of opinion isn't it ?"
No, it is not. When someone shows that it IS design then it stops being "apparant".
I don't think there is any evidence of design. Things may appear "designed" but there would not seem to be any definite property that defines "designed" that can be applied to natural occurring things.
@tirua100 Well i respect your opinion but there are many others that would disagree with you.I am willing to accept that the atheist world view has evidence to support it but you should be able to admit that intelligent design also has good evidence.Evidence is not proof.Evidence is always open to interpretation.We say Things appear "designed because we no the laws of cause and effect.We see that things that are complex and highly functional are generally the result of intelligence.
"complex and highly functional are generally the result of intelligence."
Yep, so we can conclude that if we know something was manufactured then it has a designer. Now all you need to do is show that the universe was manufactured and you're there - simple. I don't think it is possible to extrapolate human design to the workings of the universe.
@tirua100 Neither do atheists know or have an explanation for the birth of the universe.But atheists can and do form arguments based on what they can see.just as theists do.It is not saying we give up so''God did it '' it is saying the universe appears designed.
I've seen your videos and restate "Random quotes from prominent atheists taken out of context are completely meaningless." Maybe I should concede that I should put athiests/agnostic in there, but from what I've read on those 2 I think the term athiest fits the best.
I'll also repeat "god did it" is usless as a scientific concept, you can't use it to predict anything and there is nothing that points to it. You also don't "investigate" a hypothethis, you explain data using it.
Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Absurdity of Atheism!
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific "design" can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
1tabligh 2 months ago
And the field of Physics that completely eliminates the notion of intelligent design is quantum mechanics. It tells us that the universe and reality as we know it is just a illusion, the history of the universe is just a version of many possible histories the reason we observe the universe to be the way it is just a matter of probability, it is just a small part of a much larger picture the multiverse
SShamit1 3 months ago
@SShamit1 With respect everything you just said is speculation.Even Penrose stated that Hawkins mutiverse theory is not even a theory.It is nothing more than a collection of ideas according to Penrose.
We still know so little about quantum physics that we have no business drawing any conclusions at least not yet.
pestmanpat 3 months ago
@pestmanpat Hawkings M-theory is based on super-string theory and the center of which is universe is the ultimate result of the laws of physics, god is unnecessary. the multiverse I mention is that of Evertt's Many World Interpretation, which is backed up by a considerable amount of evidence. Quantum Mechanics is mature enough to draw conclusions from and use as a tool of scientific methodology, we even use it in our technology
SShamit1 3 months ago
Second Intelligent design hinges on the idea of a ''perfect universe where laws are fine tuned to allow life''. Considering 99% of the universe would kill life instantly and how the elements of the periodic table account for only 1% of our universe and also how strict the requirements of life is one can realize that existence of life is a rare event, nothing about our universe seems to be perfect or designed when one considers the bigger picture of things
SShamit1 3 months ago
@SShamit1 Watch my video'' Neil Tyson "' is he to stupid '" where i address this .
pestmanpat 3 months ago
i think u assumed that we cant know anything outside the creation of our universe, this is false in fact by observing the universe and event that created it we have some very good idea of the possible Multiverses, Parallel Realities etc.
SShamit1 3 months ago
@SShamit1 This is funny .It seems i have made a video on every point you make to answer your point on how much we really can expect to know watch ''Intelligent design or blind chance.Why a default position?
pestmanpat 3 months ago
Einstein never concluded the that the universe was designed, he rejected all notion of a personal god and the scriptures, he said if a god does exist it would be something like Spinoza's god so he was something of a pantheist
SShamit1 3 months ago
@SShamit1 Watch my video ''the truth about Einstein'' He believed in intelligent design no doubt.He was agnostic as to to the nature of the designer but he rejected mans interpretations of who God is.
Oh and the video shows he was not a pantheist.
pestmanpat 3 months ago
Alrite, Newton was in the time period of 17th and 18th century, a genius who invented calculus on a dare, and he was very religious and a pious christian but he invoked intelligent design only once in his lifetime it was when he failed to explain the stability of the planetary orbit, he concluded ''it is the work of god'' only time Scientists in history have invoked intelligent design was out of their failure and lack of knowledge of their time
SShamit1 3 months ago
RE:"intelligent design also has good evidence."
Where?
Everywhere! In fact if you go through medical text books you will often find the word ''Designed''.I have already shown you Einsteins conclusions of the design of the universe.As i said earlier both world views have valid arguments and respected atheists will admit to this.As soon as an atheist tries to compare Intelligent design to mythology and flying spaghetti monsters they lose credibility in my opinion.
pestmanpat 3 months ago
...I think that's the fun part though. I think it would be kind of boring if we did know everything. There would be nothing left to explore and no more discoveries to be made. Our differing ideas can bring out the best or the worst in people. I happened to think it should bring us together instead of attacking each other and from what I've seen of your videos I think you would agree.
bryan23271 4 months ago
@bryan23271 Yes i agree.Also consider this.When Newton developed his ideas on physical laws he did so with the preconception that the universe was designed.Imagine if modern science tried the same thing.
pestmanpat 4 months ago
@pestmanpat Im curious to know how you came to the conclusion of a designer rather than a more naturalistic explanation. Is it because of the apparent order of the universe or because of the question of why the laws of physics are the way that they are. Or perhaps something else.
bryan23271 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pestmanpat
"preconception that the universe was designed.Imagine if modern science tried the same thing."
I recon we've tried that, it was called the dark ages.
tirua100 3 months ago
As for the question, can we safely say that we have a clear understanding of how it all began or that we can assume a universe without a plan or design as our default position. I would have to say no. There really is no default position to an unknown other than we don't know. All we really have is a collection of competing ideas of how the universe began or if it had a begining. We are all in the same boat, in that we are trying to figure it all out. Theist or Atheist. continued...
bryan23271 4 months ago
I happen to agree with alot of what you said about our place in time and space. There is still much to learn about our universe and how it all began. I think you were saying that we are much like those people looking at the horizon all those years ago. The only difference is that our horizon is much bigger now. I would agree. Our understanding is limited to our current knowledge of the universe the same way it was for them back then.
bryan23271 4 months ago
You make a good point Pat. As you know, I do not believe the universe is billions of yrs old -- because science and God's Word both tell us otherwise. Check out the video series titled Scientific Materialism Is Falsified - Dr. Werner Gitt. It verifies the designer with the laws of nature regarding information. We only have to look at the world around us to know there is a creator! We don't even need science or the Bible to know it, in fact.
NephilimFree 4 months ago
@NephilimFree Thanks for your comment mate.I will check that out.
pestmanpat 4 months ago
Why do people think of God as a magic man in the sky. The bible says that God created the material universe with his dynamic energy, the bible stated that thousands of years before humans figured out that matter is made from energy. God used science and his limitless energy and intelligence when he caused the universe
wantsumpuddin 4 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
You should read The Kybalion. I think you will enjoy it.
givemeblowjob69 4 months ago
Evolution has been demonstrated to be true, and ID has been demonstrated to be false. ID is about evolution BTW, not the origin of the universe. Can you rule out an intelligence creating the universe? No, but it has as much evidence as a giant bunny, or a tiny balpoint pen doing it. So by default it is not considered because there is no evidence for it. Science only deals with that for which there is good evidence. Everything else is irrelevant to science, including the claims of religions.
LynxChan 4 months ago
Pat,
As you know, I am nobodies atheist... I agree with you that the universe was the product of a designer... that being said I do not think that ID should be taught in Science class... why? Simply that it is not science. it is a philosophical stance, not a scientific one.
RationalRoundtable 4 months ago
@RationalRoundtable Thanks for commenting.I haven't suggested ID be taught in schools here.I am suggesting science take a serious look into ID.But since you mentioned it i do agree with those who seek to include ID as a hypothesis along side evolution.Neither should be presented as fact.Science is testable predictable and observable.As an example how this applies think about Junk DNA.theistic scientists predicted that supposed junk DNA would be found to have function as far back as 1994.
pestmanpat 4 months ago
@pestmanpat
I think that the reason most evolutionary biologists do not treat ID seriously is that it serves no useful purpose in the scientific arena. The various studies contained within evolution have made predictions as to the mutation of viruses, genetic defects, etc. all ID does is suppose that there is a purpose behind it which makes no viable predictions nor give us any scientifically useful insight.
RationalRoundtable 4 months ago
@RationalRoundtable You may be right.But for those who are more interested in answers to these big questions than scientific advancement it is of benefit.finding evidence for design in DNA for example confirms faith in a creator not through scripture but through science and there will be some who reject
religion but come to a realization that ID of some kind is plausible based on these kinds of discoveries.
For some it is a first step.Anthony Flew springs to mind.
pestmanpat 4 months ago
Because natural explanations are the only ones we can test.
TeaDbluJay 4 months ago
@TeaDbluJay Hi mate.Have not heard from you in some time.There is a rape and two men are suspects.one is taken in for questioning and his DNA is taken.The other guy fell into a volcano and there are no other sources to obtain a sample of his DNA.Does that mean that he can not be taken as a serious suspect ?
Is it better to only focus on the other guy simply because he is available for testing ?
pestmanpat 4 months ago
@pestmanpat What is it about the religious that causes them to almost always offer such lame analogies? Focus on the available evidence and follow it where ever it leads.
TeaDbluJay 4 months ago
@TeaDbluJay Richard dawkins gave an analogy when describing how science works in reconstructing evolutionary pathways.He compared it to a detective at the scene of a crime.He claimed that in the absence of a suspect to observe and test the detective would look for other evidence to suggest who whodunnit.I dont think my analogy is any different. I agree with you that we should Focus on the available evidence and follow it where ever it leads.And that is precisely my beef .cont-
pestmanpat 4 months ago
@TeaDbluJay In the past 2000 years what have we learn t that has changed our natural beliefs based on cause and effect to believing the universe has no designer at all.We know that a flying spagetti monster is illogical but what have we learned that tells us to disregard intelligent design altogether ? Remember that religion and ID do not necessarily go hand in hand.One does not need to accept every religious doctrine or holy book to accept ID.Einstein was a great example of this.
pestmanpat 4 months ago
@pestmanpat if the two men are suspects it's because police have evidence other than DNA to point to them. Even if there was no DNA at all, you could still judge the merits of other evidence. If that evidence stands even without DNA, then you say you have your (now dead) culprit. If not, the dead man is vindicated. Either way, you go where the evidence leads you. I hope you agree the justice system should work only with actual evidence, not faith?
LynxChan 4 months ago
@LynxChan Yes I agree and for me there ''are"' other kinds of evidences that strongly suggest ID in the workings of the universe.True we cant see past the first event but we can see after it at least from a small vantage point.
What kind of evidence would we be looking for if we were looking for evidence of design ?
pestmanpat 4 months ago
@pestmanpat
"What kind of evidence would we be looking for if we were looking for evidence of design ?"
This is where you, and all IDist's fall down. You do NOT start with a goal in mind. You look at what you see, "the evidence", and make conclusions from it. You start with a clean slate. If you start with the design paradigm you will see it in every thing. The facts are that nothing we see needs a designer.
"god did it" (ID) is not an answer, it explains anything and everything.
tirua100 4 months ago
@pestmanpat the problem with that question is that if you allow for what amounts to magic then you will never be able to distinguish:
A- Something designed by a supernatural being
B- Something designed by a vastly superior alien intelligence
C- Something completely natural, but for which we still do not understand the cause
This renders the question unscientific. Not being able to imagine how something could come about naturally does not make the default assumption a supernatural origin (cont.)
LynxChan 4 months ago
@LynxChan (cont.) When you don't know or can't even imagine how something came to be the scientific response is to say "I don't know" not "Well it must be god then". If science took the first route, we would never have figured out evolution, gravitation, germ theory or much of anything else. As it stands we know an extraordinary amount about the Universe and we're working on the rest. Throwing up your hands and saying "this is too hard, it must be God" is a surrender, not an answer.
LynxChan 4 months ago
Just to correct a couple of things. It's billions of stars in the Milky way and billions of galaxies in the known universe, not millions.
Next up, "fine tuning" is not evidence of ID. Scientists don't give any serious consideration to ID exactly because there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest it.
From a personal perspective I find the "fine tuning" argument to be about the weakest there is for the existence of a sky fairy, whatever flavor.
tirua100 4 months ago
@tirua100 Oh my goodness i wasn't trying to be specific there,Give me a break!
RE:Scientists don't give any serious consideration to ID exactly because there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest it
It would be perfectly consistent with all we know to say that there was a Being who was responsible for the laws of physics. Stephen Hawking ...
pestmanpat 4 months ago
@tirua100 “The harmony of natural law…reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”~Albert Einstein
In light of these quotes form Einstein and Hawking i fail to see how you could say such a thing.
pestmanpat 4 months ago
@pestmanpat
Random quotes from prominent atheists taken out of context are completely meaningless. If you do not wish to link to the full quote so that context can be seen, don't bother. I don't really mean to be rude but I know no other way of putting it, random quotes are meaningless. Those 2 did not find "fine tuning" a compelling argument.
I repeat
apparent "fine tuning" of the universe is one of the weakest arguments for a god and does not rate as evidence for one.
tirua100 4 months ago
@tirua100 Watch my videos ''the truth about EINSTEIN"' and the truth about Steven hawking''
It does not rate as evidence according to who ?If we did a world poll what would be the result.And if you want to just dismiss every vote that does not agree with yours then by what authority can you do that ?
pestmanpat 4 months ago
@pestmanpat
Einstein and Hawking were/are atheists so I can conclude that they don't find the fine tuning argument to be overly convincing.Of late I have noted that Hawking has stated that a sky fairy is not needed to explain the universe, how do you correlate those comments with what you are saying?
"It does not rate as evidence according to who?"
According to Hawking and Einstein and the vast majority of other scientists from the last hundred years.
tirua100 4 months ago
@tirua100 First point can you show me where i can find Hawking referring to God as a sky fairy.Second please watch my videos on Hawking and Einstein.Einstein states he is not an atheist.
pestmanpat 4 months ago
@pestmanpat
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth." cont....
tirua100 4 months ago
Respond to this video...
the end of the quote.
" I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."
Albert Einstien
Maybe you are right and you can't claim Einstien was an athiest, but at best he was a somewhat skeptical agnostic that leaned toward atheism.
By the way "sky fairy" or "wizard" or whatever is just a derogatory term for any of the "dogs" you care to mention, just thought I'd mention that.
tirua100 4 months ago
@tirua100 I have a strong dislike for derogatory terms.I dont think they are warranted when people express there honest heartfelt opinion.
skeptical agnostic? well i really think he was an agnostic theist but you are entitled to form your own opinion.
pestmanpat 4 months ago
@pestmanpat
Sorry about the detogatory terms, I don't mean them to upset. I find the notion of "god(s)" to be so absurd that I struggle to type "God" or "gods" as it would tend to lend creadence to the idea of believing in ancient myths, at which point I would ask "Which myth?"
Your basic question in this video is why scientists don't give ID a "go". I'll repeat the reason "god did it" is a completely useless theory. It simply can't be predictive, unless you wish to predict goblins and ghosts.
tirua100 3 months ago
@tirua100 God did it is not any kind of explanation i would give.The full accusation is ''we dont know therefore God did it''. This is a straw man argument.You see i dont know how God created the universe or how he could exist in a frame work in which there is no time.cont-
pestmanpat 3 months ago
@pestmanpat
"You see i dont know how God created the universe or how he could exist in a frame work in which there is no time" - the bit about how he could exist is the interesting part, and indeed the no time thing has always been an interesting one for me. You need to answer those because "apparant design" does not equate to a higher being Also, why are you so sure that you designer is "God"? why is it not Zuess? What evidence do you have that it is the christian myth that is true? Arrogance?
tirua100 3 months ago
@tirua100 Have i identified my God here ?I am speaking only of intelligent design.One can not argue the identity of God in a scientific forum only the evidence for design.
pestmanpat 3 months ago
@pestmanpat
In this post you say
"Have i identified my God here ?"
previous
"You see i dont know how God created the universe"
I would say that reference to "God" is reference to your "god". If not you should write "how a god(s)..".
It is clear that you are referencing the god of the bible.
Either way it is pointless. I usually refer to these mythical beings as "sky fairies/wizards" or some such (to me it more inclusive) but have tried not to since you don't like it, maybe I should revert back
tirua100 3 months ago
@tirua100 Well then tell me ,from our conversation what God do in worship? And tell me why you say so.
pestmanpat 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pestmanpat
From my previous post
"It is clear that you are referencing the god of the bible."
why?
Muslims refer to "Allah", other religions refer to thier own gods by name i.e. Zeuss etc.
You always refer to "God" which is exactely how christians refer to the god of the bible.
You use the word in a personal context which implies a specific not general "god".
tirua100 3 months ago
@pestmanpat
All a bit of a pointless distraction. There is only apparant design in the universe, design that you would expect if the universe and life came from naturalistic causes. There is nothing that implies an intellegent "designer", or at least not a particularly good designer.
If you can, imagine that life came into existence naturally. What would you expect to see in regards to design?
tirua100 3 months ago
@tirua100 ''apparent'' design is a matter of opinion isn't it ? So long as you and i can cite highly educated people such as Einstein,Dawkins,Tyson,Craige,Lennox and Hawking it will always be a matter of opinion.
RE: If you can, imagine that life came into existence naturally. What would you expect to see in regards to design?
I would expect you and i would not be having this conversation because no life would ever have arose.
pestmanpat 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pestmanpat
"I would expect you and i would not be having this conversation because no life would ever have arose."
That's a piss pore response. You know damn well what you would see, you're just showing that you really are just an ignorant creationist and you "questions" are pointless because you will continually ignore anything you don't like.
"''apparent'' design is a matter of opinion isn't it ?"
No, it is not. When someone shows that it IS design then it stops being "apparant".
tirua100 3 months ago
@pestmanpat
I don't think there is any evidence of design. Things may appear "designed" but there would not seem to be any definite property that defines "designed" that can be applied to natural occurring things.
tirua100 3 months ago
@tirua100 Well i respect your opinion but there are many others that would disagree with you.I am willing to accept that the atheist world view has evidence to support it but you should be able to admit that intelligent design also has good evidence.Evidence is not proof.Evidence is always open to interpretation.We say Things appear "designed because we no the laws of cause and effect.We see that things that are complex and highly functional are generally the result of intelligence.
pestmanpat 3 months ago
@pestmanpat
"intelligent design also has good evidence."
Where?
"complex and highly functional are generally the result of intelligence."
Yep, so we can conclude that if we know something was manufactured then it has a designer. Now all you need to do is show that the universe was manufactured and you're there - simple. I don't think it is possible to extrapolate human design to the workings of the universe.
tirua100 3 months ago
@tirua100 Neither do atheists know or have an explanation for the birth of the universe.But atheists can and do form arguments based on what they can see.just as theists do.It is not saying we give up so''God did it '' it is saying the universe appears designed.
pestmanpat 3 months ago
@pestmanpat
I've seen your videos and restate "Random quotes from prominent atheists taken out of context are completely meaningless." Maybe I should concede that I should put athiests/agnostic in there, but from what I've read on those 2 I think the term athiest fits the best.
I'll also repeat "god did it" is usless as a scientific concept, you can't use it to predict anything and there is nothing that points to it. You also don't "investigate" a hypothethis, you explain data using it.
tirua100 4 months ago