This is not science vs religion as the brain-dead media portrays it. This is Information science vs Neo-Darwinian mythology. Good science vs bad science. Darwinism has to assume itself true to survive, intelligent design relies on empirical investigation in real-time.
Bible clearly states who created the life. That person is called Yahweh and his son is Jesus who died on the cross for our sins which separate us from God (our creator). If God then created life then science will simply reveal some of the mysteries. Problem with evolution is that there is much presumption which requires more faith in itself than in God. At the end of the day God cannot be proven anymore than evolution can be proven, it always has done and always will come down to faith.
its better to say 'we don't know' than to start yapping about how we saw a god when we nearly died, the reason why it is better is because we want the truth, even if it ain't pretty, when i was a kid i would've been grateful to my parrents if they told me the truth about santa claus, but instead i was lied to, and i am getting really fed up with lies, all this stuff is obvious and logical, why do i have to explain such easy stuff to people and why don't people understand? well, i don't know
Free energy technology exists!But Millions are spend in supressing that information,Find this technology at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Let the revolution begin!
@badboybilzer ".....when science and religion meld we will progress to the next level as a species" That right there is a classic example of delusional thinking. Utterly divorced from reality .
oh and im sick of the whole evolution vs God debate...its irrelevant. If there is an Intelligent Designer evolution is simply part of "his" design. planet Earth is an atom in a single cell in God's body...
the problem i have is this: it doesnt matter how far back we take our scientific understanding of how the entire universe came to be...even before the big bang. its like a kid asking a question "but what came before that?" or "but who made that?" who made humans? advanced aliens...who made the aliens? even more advanced aliens...who made them? God did...who made God? i dunno :-)
In my mind, I always thought ID was about someone with a higher intelligence creating lifeforms, like an alien, not God. I believe in ID because I don't believe in God and I think evolution is flawed, but i believe that we'll know the anwer very soon.
gah, youtube sucks so severely. it's always the last videos of a set on here that never work for me...hopefully i'll get to see this at some point, it so far has been good.
@DeJay17Revolution Are u retardet? It represented both sides. Like lili9000c said, in the first part of the movie they only showed ID arguments. The only problem is, that they were proven wrong. All of them. Probably thats why they lost the trail, dont u think?
@ProofScientific it didnt allow id to make a rebuttal its a one sided debate its like ID makes the opening statement then evolution makes their rebuttal and the debates over that isnt fair thats an attempt to look fair but at least the proponents themselves presented it. Go to an ID site sometime and look at the issue from bothe other side
@DeJay17Revolution" it didnt allow id to make a rebuttal its a one sided debate its like ID makes the opening statement then evolution makes their rebuttal and the debates over that isnt fair"
this was not a debate.... this was a documentary.
but funny you mention one sided. after all, this started when christian school board members wanted only creationism taught, with no evolution involved.
dawkins ending with evidence for evolution = 99% --- id = o% still these dummies don,t get it. i cringe when i here these retarded fuckers say " garrrrrrd did it"
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
this documentary sucks why not represent both sides they just show what the Intelligent design people said and then make sure its "refuted" so you dont have to think to hard about it thats lazy look at the truth this is dramatizing the whole thing
lol, show two sides? On the dover case, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff... get that??? the ID people don't even have to do anything on this case....what they should do is pray that the plaintiff wouldn't get enough proof but too bad the plaintiff did :). Sorry ID( creationist) u lost..
Actually the whole first part of the documentary seemed to show nothing but the intelligent design people and their "scientific" evidence, in the second time it was refuted. It seemed pretty 50/50 to me. They couldn't do it the other way round because there's just no way (as yet) to refute Theory of Evolution (which isn't even a theory anymore, it's scientific fact)
So ID is saying that: "This is complex, so it must have a designer", so someone can say that the designer is complex and must have a designer? Just curious.
The even greater riddle, to me, is they say that you can tell when you see something which is designed. Like finding a watch in the forest. You can just tell it was "created". But then they go on to say that because of the complexity of nature, it must be created or designed. Well if every damned thing is designed, what are you distinguishing the watch from? It's ALL created according to them, so how can you tell what's different, such as the watch in the forest?
We have no evidence of anyone building stonehenge. But do we believe that someone built it? Of course! Why? Because when we see a design, it is obvious that there must have been a designER.
What does this documentary prove? He still didn't explain how the complex flagellum were formed. So far, I've seen more evidence for ID than for Evolution, hands down.
You have made the fallacy of thinking that whatever the observer deems to be rdered = design.
The accurate analogy would be if you encountered a multitude of stonehenges, and picked the one you just 'liked' the most, and held that up as evidence of ID - and ignored all the others.
Flagellum is formed from simpler organelle such as the Type III secretory and transport system. There are other theories of it as well:
Wiki: evolution of the flagella.
Just because at a point of time, something is unexplained, doesn mean we should use "designer" or "god" to explain it.
Science do not use "intuition" to characterize an observation. Just because by "intuition" something is "appears" designed doesn mean it is. Especially for a process so already understood such as evolution.
@wildreams Laplace wrote a book on the formation of the Solar System, and Napoleon ask why he hadn't mentioned God. 'Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.' ("I had no need of that hypothesis.") Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, 'Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses.' ("Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains many things.")
A couple mistakes with your statement which I see over and over again.
Stonehenge is not alive, never was. Its not a organism.
Second if your statement was true, that doesn't mean it was God that made stonehenge. It could be anything and its wrong to just fill in the answer. Thats what I see most of the time. We don't know what happened, so it must be God. Thats just stupid.
id isnt science because most of the answers would be "god did it" and according to most of them its all 100% true so theres not really any point in teaching it except to cause trouble with all the other different beliefs of the class.
Well there are plenty of scientists who will reiterate that ID is not science.
However when scientists have applied the scientific method to ID the have been able to falsify it (for instance, Ireducible Complexity was torn to shreds when the flaggelum was shown to be reducible, same goes with the eye, ear, etc.)
Some things are not science, but can be falsified by/using science. Its just that, in this case, it was not the proponents that bothered to go out and do the testing. Normally you try to falsify your own hypothesis by testing it. Behe has never done the experiments, it was left to everyone else to show it up.
Science was used to shoot down the psuedoscience claptrap. It doesn't mean that ID is/was science.
Mostly because those who support ID want to force it into classrooms. If something like this gets in then you might as well let alchemy, astrology and magic in as well.
Whilst the ideas may deserve to be looked into, it's not really high school kids that should be lumbered with it. If anything of note was found then the schools just update their textbooks, and let those that are interested pursue careers in it. Those that arn't interested will go off and do what they want to do.
Let me phrase it better. They want to force it in AS science. If it was in philosophical or religious classes then I have no problem.
What cult of the child thing? Children are impressionable and unable to clearly disinguish many things. Is it wrong to ask that they be taught, in science, that which is science and adhears to its principles. Would you have them teach the controversy in sex ed to include stork theory? Would you have them teach that the holocaust never happened?
To try and teach all creation myths would be an impossible task. However, many creation myths are taught in R.E and many ancient creation myths are taught in History. Although stupid, the Judeo-Christian creation myth has significantly influenced mankind's history to make being taught in History classes reasonable, and is believed by enough today to permit being taught in R.E. class.
DEFINATELY not in Science class, though. Science class should only teach students the facts.
Dembski cannot sit there and lie and say he doesn't "know" whom he believes designed the bacteria flagellum. He was my professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The ID proponents love speaking in general terms to make their ideas seem scientific.
Attenborough fudges this. He sneaks in this statement about "all science being objective." (:55).
He says "science is an observational way of thinking." This does not make it "objective." History, literature, and philosophy can all be said to be "observational." Are these fields by nature less objective than science?
He (or the editors of this video) also mischaracterizes ID. It does not say "we can't find any evidence, and therefore it was made by God...
Is there a supernatural God?..or is the energy behind life and behind our universe a natural creative energy...I believe the evolutionary process of natural selection are also guided by a natural energy of our cosmos....how about mathematical proof? Search videos by superwhuffo1
I'm just wondering, is there a part 6 to this. Ive got really interested, and then it just stopped abruptly at the end of video 5? Is there a video six and if so, may i please have a link?
I like how you ID proponents keep ignoring the fact that if there is an intelligent designer, he needs to have been designed at some point. ID IS NOT SCIENCE!!!! It's mythology. It's forcing young minds to make decisions they are not equipped to make.
Design does not need to "postulate an entity at least as complicated as that which it is supposed to explain" if the entity is non-corporeal. A non-corporeal being is not physically complex. Dawkins is no philosopher.
You are correct: Dawkins is not a philosopher; he is a scientist, in particular, a biologist. However, the discussion at hand concerns not philosophy, in general; but rather, science, in particular. And since ID proponents regard their "theory" as a "scientific theory", they are required to answer scientific questions, bound by known laws, or varifiable new ones.
As for an entity (i.e. "God") being non-corporeal, such a statement (or claim) is meaningless, until you can demonstrate its validity. Else, every undemonstrated and unvarifiable claims must be considered, even the seemingly ridiculous. The discussion would quickly spiral to nonsense!
I don't think it's meaningless. That is the same thing the logical positivists said. This view has been discredited by most philosophers in recent years.
There are many things that we cannot observe directly that we believe exist. Electrons and other subatomic particles for example. We can't see them but they are a good explanation from what we can observe. As far as the God hypothesis, this is the best explanation of the facts in my opinion.
Again, you have digress. Again, the discussion at hand is not philosophy, in general; but science, in particular. And since ID "theorists" regard their "theory" as a "scientific theory", they must answer scientific questions. More specifically, they must begin with a clear, verifiable hypothesis; they must show evidences to support their hypothesis (or claims); they must test and re-test their hypothesis; and they must subject their "theory" to correct predictions and true, peer review.
Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: The universe has a cause for its existence.
Since time/space/matter came into existence at the Big Bang, the cause must be (among other things) timeless, space-less, incorporeal, & unimaginably powerful. This cause I call God.
I think this explanation is just as plausible (and more so) than the multi-verse & other ideas I'm familiar with.
In 1970 Steven Hawking published a paper that won him the Wolf prize in mathematics. In it he showed that the Universe began to exist a finite time ago in the past by an outside causal agent. Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross has a good discussion of this. When one looks at the anthropic principle it becomes clear that this causal agent must be unimaginable intelligent. See next post for that.
The physical laws of nature, when given mathematical expression, contain various constants whose values are not determined by the laws themselves. These values are fine-tuned for life on a razors edge. When one assigns different values to these constants or forces, one discovers that the proportion of universes capable of supporting intelligent life is shockingly small. Just as slight variation in these values would render life impossible.
For example, according to the physicist P.C.W. Davies, changes in either the gravitational constant or the weak force of only one part in 10 to the 100 (thats 1 with 100 zeros behind it) would have prevented a life permitting universe.
Steven Hawking estimates that a decrease in the expansion rate of even one part in a hundred thousand million million one second after the Big Bang would have resulted in the universes recollapse long ago; a similar increase would have precluded the galaxies condensing out of the expanding matter.
Much more could be said but I need to get to bed. You should read up on it. Of course many will disagree w/ the conclusions but perhaps you should investigate it with an open mind. Anyway, this cosmic fine tuning is either by chance necessity or design. Chance is ruled out mathematically (See Jonathan Lennox) and there is no necessity. This leaves us with design or a multi-verse. Occams Razor shaves off the multi-verse, again leaving design. I think its plausible and should not be ruled out.
Thank you for your lengthy response. I wish, however, I could say more of it. That is, despite its length, your response lacks any real substance. Not only does it lack substance, it is filled with inconsistencies and contradictions. It is disappointing coming from someone who sounds philosophically mature. I think it is due in large part to you desperately wanting that there should be a "God", at the end!
However, before I dissect your reason and destroy your unfounded hope, I would like to make one thing absolutely clear so that there be no misunderstanding; particularly coming from those who share your view. That is, at the very heart of our discussion, what brought you and I here in the first place, is the attempt by a small, well-organized, well-funded, religiously motivated group to challenge the Theory of Evolution by proposing a so called "Theory of Intelligent Design",...
QUOTE"at the very heart of our discussion... is the attempt by a small... group to challenge the Theory of Evolution by proposing a so called 'Theory of Intelligent Design'"
Absolutely false. The thrust of my comments have been about the anthropic principle and cosmology. This is NOT synonymous with ID. Francis Collins and John Polkinghorne for example are evolutionists who would agree with my position on the anthropic principle.
...which is nothing more than Christian Creationism in suitable dressing (If you cannot admit that much, then you are intellectually dishonest!).
But whether you are willing to admit it or not, the Theory of Evolution is a well-constructed and well-confirmed scientific theory. There area wide range of date, information, and hard evidences (from the fossil records to modern genetics) supporting the claims, predictions, and ultimately explanations of the Theory of Evolution for the...
QUOTE"...which is nothing more than Christian Creationism in suitable dressing"
That depends on how you are defining Creationism. If it's defined by its founders such as Henry Morris as the belief in a young earth which was created in six literal days then you are flat wrong. If you define it yourself then it can mean whatever you want.
QUOTE"If you cannot admit that much, then you are intellectually dishonest!"
...diversity of life on this planet. All to which, by the way, "intelligent" design is completely silent: no explanation, no predictions, no applicatoins!
Yet, you go on about the origin of the universe, which, in case you are not aware, the Theory of Evolution is not concerned about. The Theory of Evolution takes a priori the existence of life (even at the fundamental level), and from there, through the process of natural selection, along with other mechanisms (and not just pure chance,...
QUOTE"Yet, you go on about the origin of the universe, which, in case you are not aware, the Theory of Evolution is not concerned about."
Yes, of course. Natural selection is meant to explain living systems.
I think perhaps we were crossing lines. I have not been arguing for ID in most of my posts. I though I made it clear that I was simply saying that there are good reasons to believe in God. Perhaps I was not clear on that. Sorry.
...as you like to make it sound), life evolves, creating diversity. By concerning yourself with the larger question of 'how' life came to be, you are moving out the realm of biology, and into chemical evolution (or abiogenesis), and ultimately into physics itself.
Thus, without lost, I can, with due respect to you personally, end our debate here by merely calling your constant digression as: Irrevelant! However, I will not do so; since you are fond of philosophical digression, I will...
...be kind and accommodate you. But just so that I can hammer my point home: "Intelligent" design has failed miserably and shamefully in its to disprove the Theory of Evolution, and you have not even touched upon the subject!
Now, when I said I was disappointed in you, I truly meant it! You merely pawned the work of others, that is, the thoughts of others off as your own. It is one thing to be in intellectual agreeement with someone; but it is shamefull to not think for yourself,...
It would be really nice if you could stop insulting me.
MY POINTS HAVE HAD VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH ID. If you did not want to talk about the anthropic principle and the existence of God. If you want to keep insulting me with comments about ID that fine but you are building straw-men. I have not spoken hardly at all about ID in this discussion. However, if you want me to I will tell you why I think SOME of the arguments for Darwinian evolution are weak.
...to not speak for yourself, and to merely accept something because it suits your philosophical (and I suspect, religious) biasness!
But to start, I do not necessarily agree with, or, at the very least, am suspicious of, the premise that "everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence". For someone who said that "positivists" have been "discredited" by many philosophers, you sound sure positive of your position. Though as common-sense as such a statement sounds, modern...
QUOTE"For someone who said that 'positivists' have been "discredited" by many philosophers"
No, no, no. I hope you are joking. This is not what logical positivism is. And it's not many philosophers that have rejected it, it's all professionals. Logical positivists believed that only that which is emperically verifiable could be established as true, therefore talk of God was meaningless to them.
...science (i.e. quantum mechanics and quantum field theory) has challenged our common-sense understanding of what we regard as "reality", including our cherished notion of "causality". Since you mentioned Steven Hawkings, who, I am sure would not agree with you re-interpreting his hardwork to suit your religiouis hope, let me share with you a statement he made regarding the possible origin of the universe:...
"science (i.e. quantum mechanics and quantum field theory) has challenged our common-sense understanding of what we regard as 'reality', including our cherished notion of 'causality'".
There are at least ten interpretations of quantum mechanics and no one knows which is right if any. The Copenhagen theory has the idea of something coming from nothing i.e. magic.
..."I now think I can show how the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science. The universe exists, because general relativity and quantum theory allow and require it to exist. If I'm right, the universe is self-contained, and is governed by science alone."
Of course, you are welcomed, and are encouraged to disagree; but if you do so, then you will only be making my point for me: that no one, including Steven Hawkings, and certainly you,...
...has the answer to the ultimate question of where the universe came from. And for you, with you common-place "thinking" and unsubstantiated claims, to have the audacity to make the sweeping conclusion that "God" is the origin of all things, is laughable! But even if I were to entertain your premise in earnest, I cannot take your conclusion seriously! You merely gave a name to an event that you assume must have happened. In your own words: "This [the cause of the universe] I called "God""...
You really like insulting people. You started off nice then became very rude.
Anyway, if you want to believe that something comes from nothing based on the Copenhagen theory, that's your business. I think its worse than magic however. At least the magician has his hat to begin with before he pulls his rabbit out.
If we reject causality then science dies since science is the search for causes. We lose the ability to ask "why" since the answer becomes "nothing caused this to happen".
danjoeblue: I don't think you can claim a philosophical preference that science must adhere to a linear causal chain. A scientific theory that claims that A exist causes B and that B causes A seems perfectly sensible and testable, so long as there are logical rules that govern which events are capable in theory of causing other events. Then, at least in principle, the intuitive notion that every event must have a cause (Minus the assumed: THAT PRECEDES IT IN A TEMPORAL SEQUENCE!) can be kept. .
If the Universe began to exist it must have had some sort of cause. Things do not just pop into existence out of nothing. This is magic-- not science and not serious metaphysics. Either the "stuff" of the Universe has always existed (which has major philosophical problems) or it began to exist. If it began it must have had a cause.
First off, I apologize if you feel offended by my posts. I could not resist having a laugh here and there. However, I think throughout my choice of words has always been civil. But as I have said before, your arguments can, at best, only be entertained, and not taken seriously as a challenge to science.
Science does not claim to know everything, and certainly does not claim to have the answer to the ultimate question of where the universe came from. Yet, you are! And for what reasons? A few simple arguments based on filter that filters nothing! You lack evidences of any kind, and any kind you do have come from science, which continues to seek for answers. Unlike you, who has already reached an unfounded sweeping conclusion!
"Science does not... claim to have the answer to the ultimate question of where the universe came from. Yet, you are! And for what reasons? A few simple arguments based on filter that filters nothing! You lack evidences of any kind, and any kind you do have come from science... Unlike you, who has already reached an unfounded sweeping conclusion!"
Notice this response does not actually refute the Kalam argument. It just insults the one making it. Moreover it misrepresents it!
A conclusion, I am sorry to say, and I am sure one you may not admit it, is part of your religious makeup. That is, behind your philosophical arguments for a "God" lies your religious belief in a "personal God", not just some mere "cause". And if I can venture a further guess, I say in particular the Christian "God". But again, take Occam's Razor to it, and see what happens! Talking about magic!
I happened to read this post that I ignored a couple months ago.
QUOTE:"A conclusion, I am sorry to say, and I am sure one you may not admit it, is part of your religious makeup. That is, behind your philosophical arguments for a 'God' lies your religious belief in a "personal God", not just some mere 'cause'."
This sounds very similar if not identical to what philosophers call the genetic fallacy. Even if I believe in God based on false reasons, this does not mean God doesn't exist!
Anyhow, it has been fun, our little excursion into philosophy. And yes, I do know the idea of "positivism"; I was just having a little fun at your expense, for you are, yourself, unwarrantedly too "positive". But alas, it matters not. Your arguments show nothing (just the same spin over and over!). Nonetheless, I wish you luck. And a good farewell.
Perhaps you do not understand: Time is not an abstract linear sequence of event. Time is not flat, just like the earth is not flat. Just like the earth has no edge, time may have no edge. Things in the past may be caused by things in the future.
In this view, their is no more difficulty in explaining the origin of the universe, than there is in explaining its existence at any subsequent time.
The original point about causality that I was making was in terms of things coming into existence. Nothing comes from nothing. For something to begin to exist it must have a cause. This is at least more plausible than its negation. 'A' cannot cause 'B' to exist if 'B' caused 'A' to exist because for this to happen one would have to create the other before it existed. This is irrational.
...Well, if that is what you call "God" then you and I are not in dispute; but I can assure you that most "ID theorists", along with religious fanatics, would quickly, even violently disagree you. It is like someone who considers "God" as the pervading energy throughout the universe -- such a person would find "God" in a pile of dung (idea credited to Physicists Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize recipient in physics)...
...But to go on. You then went on about the "fine tuning" of the universal constants, and how such "tuning" imples a "God". First off, for all this talk, you have yet to define specifically what you mean by "God"; I am sure you did not mean a pile of dung. Not only have you not define what you mean by "God" (though I am certain you want "it" to mean in the "personal sense"), you committed a glaring contradiction by describing "God" (something yet undefined) as "unimaginably powerful" and...
"you committed a glaring contradiction by describing "God" (something yet undefined) as "unimaginably powerful" and..."
What? Whatever the force was that brought the universe into existence is unimaginably powerful. You disagree? OK, then something unimaginably weak brought it into existence? Is that what you believe?
I don't start with a definition. I let the logical deduction do the defining for me. One of those deduction is the fact that whatever created the Universe is powerful.
1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator. 3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement. 4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing. 6. Therefore, God does not exist.
I recognized as a spin off of the ontological argument but I didn't know if you were serious. I'm familiar with Anselm's, Descarte's & Plantinga's versions of the argument.
Can you really conceive of something being perfect that is superior not existing than existing?
Think of the most perfect ice cream cone you enjoy. Isn't the existence of that superior to the non-existence? A silly illustration, but I'm trying to make the point.
P.S. I am not defending the ontological argument here.
Perhaps the person's imagination would be more satisfied and think that the thought of an object is more perfect in imagination than in reality. However, *for the object itself*, it is more perfect to exist than to not exist. Not-existing cannot be perfect because it is literally nothing. An object that does not exist has no attributes (including perfection) at all in and of itself because it has nothing at all since it does not exist.
Just build on a bit on wad i mentioned. Actually, existence can take on another meaning too.
For example, an idea, it might not physically exist, but it certainly exist as an imaginary concept. However, it could be a "perfect" concept, a powerful concept with the ability to change people's life and such. Ever watch the Batman movies? lol
As such, God need not exist physically, but remain perfect, as an idea, with the ability to change peoples life.LOL
..."unimaginab[ly] intelligent". Well, if "God" is so "unimaginab[le]", how did you come to conceive of such a "thing"? And if you are only describing certain attributes of "God", I want to know how you came to such an "understanding", when in you confess that you do not think "there is empirical, observable, airtight, scientific evidence for "God""? Ironically, thought is there is no "scientific evidence for "God"", you used scientific facts, i.e. the universal constants, to conclude...
QUOTE:I want to know how you came to such an "understanding", when in you confess that you do not think "there is empirical, observable, airtight, scientific evidence for "God""? Ironically, thought is there is no "scientific evidence for "God"", you used scientific facts, i.e. the universal constants, to conclude..."
You have no idea what the nature of proof and evidence is, do you? Yes, of course scientific theories can support claims without proving them airtight. You don't understand this?
...that "God" exists! Also, as an aside, if "God" is so "powerful", why the "fine tuning"? -- sounds like "God" was compelled!
Which, now, brings me to my main objection of your entire "logic". But before I do so, when I said that you pawned the work of others, I war referring in particular to William Dembski. Yes, I know your took his idea of the "explanatory filter" to make reach "your" conclusion. Just in case you did not know, his idea is not respected, whether philosophically or...
I was using the concepts of necessity, chance and design which are common to Dembski's filter, but I was not using the filter itself to come to the conclusion I did.
...mathematically. He is no "Isaac Newton of information theory"! Isaac Newton invented a whole branch of mathematics to describe what he perceieved in the physical world; William Dembski, a fourth rate mathematician, similar to you stealing Steven Hawkings ideas, took and re-interpreted the mathematics of others (namely, Shannon and Kolmorgorov), to reach indefensible conclusion!
Again, as I have said before seeks to know what it does not know; not by merely ending inquiry by saying...
...that an "intelligence" made it so; but by pushing forward, investigating, and, if need be, refining old theories and constructing new theories along the way. So, though scientists do not yet understand the reason(s) behind the universal constants, it does not necessarily mean that there is no reason(s) as you suggested. As a matter of fact, they are searching for the answer(s) as we speak. And given the relentless progress of science, maybe someday a fundamental reason(s) will be found...
...to explain those constants (unlike you, who tries to end inquiry by saying "God" made it so). Thus, for you to use Dembski's "explanatory filter" to suggest that there are only three possibilities -- chance, necessity, or design -- is arrogantly absurd!
Dembski's filter, in case you are not aware, have been discredited, and no one in the intellectual arena takes it seriously, for it is too sweeping in its assertion and conclusion. Dembski assumes he can know of all...
...probabilities and possibilities in order to even begin ruling any one of them out as a candidate for explanation of an event. But, of course, he does not! Nor do you! You cannot say, for example, "no necessity" so blanketly unless you can demonstrate that there is ABSOLUTELY no other, fundamental reason behind the seemingly "fine tuning". But, of course, you cannot! Don't kid yourself! As for Occam's Razor, it is not a law of science, it is a guiding principle. Occam's Razor...
...certainly rule out the strangeness of quantum field theory; but time and time over, quantum field theory has stood the test of experiments! If Occam's Razor does apply in general, it must be used with great care, and great sensitivity to the events under consideration!
Plus, in case you did not notice something peculiar about Dembski's "explanatory filter": the case for "design" is a negative argument: it is based on ruling out all other explanations...
You know nothing of the anthropic principle. You know nothing of the work of P.C.W. Davies, Robert Jastrow and John Polkinghorne (who are evolutionists) yet you assume omniscience in your position and bring a barrage insults on me. Once someone whom I am dialogging insults me with no end in sight, I bow out. I don't think its very mature to put people down like that. I am sure you will take this as a great victory for yourself. Pat yourself on the back, my friend. Goodbye.
...winning by default, only: it does not stand on its own as a viable and verifiable theory! But not only that, Dembski's filter fails miserably in ruling out everything (which is what it needs to do)! Thus, "design" does not explain anything, predict anything, or enhance anything, advancing further understanding! It is, in short, the "God of Gaps" in cheap clothings!
YR1NTRLY.
Sorry, our discussion has to end here. I have heard your arguments to many times to find it at all interesting!
Pardon me again: I thought faster than I wrote, so some words are missing; but I am sure as an "intelligent" person, you can fill in the gaps.
Also, just curious, for fun, have you ever thought of using Occam's Razor on, say, the Bible? -- I think it would shred the Bible into undiscernable pieces!
Also, as interesting as speculative philosophy is, I do not care to indulge in such matters. It does not matter whether "logical positivists" has been "discredited" or not. I am not one. And science does not claim to know anything absolutely. As a matter of fact, if anything at all, science has challenged our understanding, our intuition, and our beliefs. But nonetheless, what science claims, it can demonstrate: logically, mathematically, and experimentally.
And for the things science does not know, it seeks to know. Not by merely ending inquiry by saying that an "intelligent designer" made it so; but by pushing forward, investigating, and, if need be, refining old theories and constructing new theories along the way. Indeed, that is the weakness of your position: I called your original claim "meaningless" and asked for demonstration; your response was merely you "[DON'T THINK]" it is "meaningless".
You went on further saying that the "God hypothesis" is the "best explanation" of the facts. Why? Because it is your "[OPINION]". I am sorry, but that will not do. Again, even ID "theorists" do not say that (though, everyone knows what they would like to say). And to go back to your favorite subject, philosophy, I am sure philosophers, or better yet, philosophy students would dismiss your line of "reasoning" and thus "conclusion"!
I don't have time to respond to everything you say. The "facts" of the Universe that are best explained by a super intelligence in my opinion are those that are referred to by the name, "anthropic principle". Many astronomers including P.C.W. Davies have been persuaded by this argument. I would encourage you to research it. Davies would be good to read as would John Leslie and John Polkinghorne.
There are many philosophers who agree though you are right that some would dismiss it, of course.
To start, thank you for the pleasant exchanges. Unfortunately, I cannot say that it was enlightening. As much as I would like to take what you say seriously, but the very fact that you cannot substantiate your claims only reaffirm the weakness of your position. As for the authors you recommended, I can too, in turn, recommend books for you to read. But there is little point in that: in any serious debate, we have to trust that our opponent has read enough to have an earnest discussion.
Your welcome and likewise. It's nice to talk with someone who disagrees yet is respectful. Thanks.
Anyway, I don't have much time lately which is why I don't give you much info. I have a family, a full time job, and am attending college, BUT, I will try to give you about fifteen minutes to unpack and "substantiate" at least a little bit of where I stand on some things lately.
If science by definition rules out an outside causal agent, designer or explanation for nature (as the textbooks do) then of course we cannot regard the God hypothesis as science. However, I think that we should look for the real explanation whatever it may be and not rule out possibilities a priori. If you disagree, OK that's fine, you don't need to call what I believe science, but that does not mean the explanation can't be plausible or true. Science is not the final arbiter of truth.
Now before I get into evidence let me say this, I don't think there is empirical, observable, airtight, scientific evidence for God. Any skeptic who is waiting for that will never find it. However, what I do think is that there are many good reasons to think that "God" exists. The arguments I would offer would be cumulative. I don't think that one of them alone gives us compelling reason but taken together I think they make a more plausible case for God than the negation.
But, again, science is more than just reading books and accepting views that suit our personal and philosophical predispositions. At the end of the day, any scientific claims must be backed by evidences, by testable and re-testable experiments, and must ultimately stand on their own. Argument by authority will not do. The history of science is littered with examples contradicting such a tenuous position!
However, in case you would like to consider ID as a "paradigm shift" of some sort, as some do, I would like to say in advance that such a position is laughable. Especially when you compare it to true scientific revolutions, as personified by Galileo, Newton, Einstein, or Bohr (and others). Scientific revolutions come from the insights of individuals, not from a multimillion dollars think-tank with a clear religious agenda!
"There are many things that we cannot observe directly that we believe exist." Seeing is not the only form of evidence. The scientific theory involving electrons is clear for those who try hard to understand it, it is consistent, it is not contradictory, and is evidently correct enough for your computer to continue to run as you read this. The Bible is not even consistent with itself, requiring the reader to discard at least part of it just believe the rest of it. Proof? Please read all of it.
What advocates of Intelligent Design do not seem to grasp is the massive amounts of "screw ups" that would be attributed to a designer. Why are our eyes on backwards and upside down? What about the parasitic eye worm that can live in no other environment than a child's eye which slowly bores it's way through eventually blinding the child. What of the collapsing universes and imploding stars too? If there was a designer responsible I wouldn't let him design my garden shed.
Please re-read Genesis 1. You can not believe God and evolution at the same time. Please give specific examples where you believe science and God's word conflict. John 3- Are you born again? The spirit is like the wind- you can not see it, but you can feel it and see the evidence of it.
I'm a strong Christian and a scientist but I cannot agree that science validates the bible and vice versa. Spiritual truth is supernatural and in a very different realm from science. Evolution is not distracting people from God. Instead, Intelligent Design is a suicidal attack on Christianity itself.
Why are we creating a controversy when there is none? There are tons of other scientific theories to attack too if we follow the logic of Christian I.D. proponents.
I've completed several college courses in geology, biology, and archaeology. We've certainly made several discoveries since the middle ages. All have given more credibility to the truth of God's word.
You might have taken college classes but you need to take them again and get a passing grade.
Or if indeed you managed to pass then you should ask for a refund because you clearly have been misinformed.
Unless you have made these discoveries in which case you should share them with the rest of the scientific community, there's a nobel prize waiting for you...
All that science has done since the middle ages is push the god concept further and further into hiding.
Let's hear some of these specific discoveries that have enlightened you to the absense of intelligent design. The only absense of intelligence I have discovered is yourself. Mr. Brainiac.
Before you call me "Brainiac" I would like to point out the fact that despite your so-called "college courses" (in scientific fields no less) you seem oblivious that you do not "proof a negative"; it's a counter productive and indeed idiotic way to approach science. What you do is that if you are convinced of having evidence that supports ID then you should submit it for peer review and if it is conclusive, like I said, it's Nobel galore for you...
Now I could humor you and start a diatribe on the overwhelmingly large amount in favor of evolution spanning fields of inquiry from chemistry to biology etc etc etc...However I would hope that at your age, you should be able to make that research for yourself as an intelligent / curious mind would.
But of course, it's a plague on creationists to fail to be able to rise to that elementary step in scientific inquiry as Behe as shown many times over (cfr Dover trial transcripts).
It's interesting to note , by the way, that NO RESEARCH is being done in ID... NOWHERE...
That should allow you to draw a pretty obvious conclusion that even a 5 year old could come up with, that being : " there's just no ground for research there".
Also if evolution were to be proven false someday, it would still say nothing about ID. And if you can not grasp that simple nothing, it's not a refund you should seek but the death penalty for whomever did a pathetic job teaching you these notions.
The only example you have given for the absence of intelligent design is your own absence of intelligence. My first example is open your eyes and look at God's creation- you might begin with a sunrise. If you choose to ignore that, try one of His sunsets. A fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God'.
Your failure to find intelligence in my prose is not a sign of a lack thereof; I honestly don't think you would recognize Intelligence even if it smacked a bible on the empty shell sitting on your neck.
Once again and I'll try to go "Blues clues level" for you, the burden of proof lies with the side making the positive claim.
This has been flagged as spam show
This is not science vs religion as the brain-dead media portrays it. This is Information science vs Neo-Darwinian mythology. Good science vs bad science. Darwinism has to assume itself true to survive, intelligent design relies on empirical investigation in real-time.
pollychocker 7 months ago
Bible clearly states who created the life. That person is called Yahweh and his son is Jesus who died on the cross for our sins which separate us from God (our creator). If God then created life then science will simply reveal some of the mysteries. Problem with evolution is that there is much presumption which requires more faith in itself than in God. At the end of the day God cannot be proven anymore than evolution can be proven, it always has done and always will come down to faith.
devonbiker 7 months ago
@devonbiker Science doesn't require any faith, there is no aspect to make assumptions to make it sound like faith in Evolution.
Everything Evolution stands for is explained by science and loads upon loads of evidence, there is zero evidence of any god or creator.
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 7 months ago
@devonbiker No it doesn't. Evolution has evidence. The Bible doesn't.
BigLundi 7 months ago
on the open marketplace of ideas bad ideas get disgarded
NefariousVirtuoso88 8 months ago
i think be scientific is the true nature of god.
tubester92 9 months ago
I wish I had the money to hire David Attenborough to narrate my day to day life.
:D
LiveTheWild 11 months ago
@LiveTheWild That would be so awsome.
Warmsprite1w 10 months ago
The intelligent design is a truly the KILLER of EVOLUTION MYTH .
algadykhalifa 1 year ago
@algadykhalifa are you retarded or just incredibly ignorant
awesome399 1 year ago
@algadykhalifa Its not a myth its a scientific... wait for it...little more...FACT!!!!!
Read origin of species.
Warmsprite1w 10 months ago
@algadykhalifa Fuckwit.
gamesbok 10 months ago
its better to say 'we don't know' than to start yapping about how we saw a god when we nearly died, the reason why it is better is because we want the truth, even if it ain't pretty, when i was a kid i would've been grateful to my parrents if they told me the truth about santa claus, but instead i was lied to, and i am getting really fed up with lies, all this stuff is obvious and logical, why do i have to explain such easy stuff to people and why don't people understand? well, i don't know
Zee96969696 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free energy technology exists!But Millions are spend in supressing that information,Find this technology at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Let the revolution begin!
narragansettharco 1 year ago
the idea that science is objective is banal, modren science is a product of faith and hope just like religon
,,
heres a prophecy when science and religon meld we will progress to the next level as a species
badboybilzer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@badboybilzer
"modren science is a product of faith and hope just like religon"
How in the hell is science a product of faith and hope?
adkinsjr 1 year ago
@badboybilzer ".....when science and religion meld we will progress to the next level as a species" That right there is a classic example of delusional thinking. Utterly divorced from reality .
Drweavil 1 year ago
oh and im sick of the whole evolution vs God debate...its irrelevant. If there is an Intelligent Designer evolution is simply part of "his" design. planet Earth is an atom in a single cell in God's body...
DoctorSess 1 year ago
the problem i have is this: it doesnt matter how far back we take our scientific understanding of how the entire universe came to be...even before the big bang. its like a kid asking a question "but what came before that?" or "but who made that?" who made humans? advanced aliens...who made the aliens? even more advanced aliens...who made them? God did...who made God? i dunno :-)
DoctorSess 1 year ago
In my mind, I always thought ID was about someone with a higher intelligence creating lifeforms, like an alien, not God. I believe in ID because I don't believe in God and I think evolution is flawed, but i believe that we'll know the anwer very soon.
GomuNingen 1 year ago
Only in America...
OTSTRETFORD 1 year ago 2
I would love to be a scientist, leading lights of civilisation.
GeorgesBarras 1 year ago 2
seems censorship is a muck look at DeJay17Revolution
DeJay14 1 year ago
gah, youtube sucks so severely. it's always the last videos of a set on here that never work for me...hopefully i'll get to see this at some point, it so far has been good.
captainpungent 1 year ago
@DeJay17Revolution Are u retardet? It represented both sides. Like lili9000c said, in the first part of the movie they only showed ID arguments. The only problem is, that they were proven wrong. All of them. Probably thats why they lost the trail, dont u think?
ProofScientific 2 years ago 4
@ProofScientific it didnt allow id to make a rebuttal its a one sided debate its like ID makes the opening statement then evolution makes their rebuttal and the debates over that isnt fair thats an attempt to look fair but at least the proponents themselves presented it. Go to an ID site sometime and look at the issue from bothe other side
DeJay17Revolution 1 year ago
@DeJay17Revolution" it didnt allow id to make a rebuttal its a one sided debate its like ID makes the opening statement then evolution makes their rebuttal and the debates over that isnt fair"
this was not a debate.... this was a documentary.
but funny you mention one sided. after all, this started when christian school board members wanted only creationism taught, with no evolution involved.
pot calling the kettle black perhaps??
scottpastry 1 year ago
I call it pope a dope. No god no design. Get real sience is right.
2estring57 2 years ago
dawkins ending with evidence for evolution = 99% --- id = o% still these dummies don,t get it. i cringe when i here these retarded fuckers say " garrrrrrd did it"
userwl2850 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this documentary sucks why not represent both sides they just show what the Intelligent design people said and then make sure its "refuted" so you dont have to think to hard about it thats lazy look at the truth this is dramatizing the whole thing
DeJay17Revolution 2 years ago
watch the NOVA intelligent design on trial then you get the other side of the story
ScienceGuy87 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
thats just as bad lol if not more biased than this one at least they show some ID proponents in this one that one is just as bad
DeJay17Revolution 2 years ago
lol, show two sides? On the dover case, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff... get that??? the ID people don't even have to do anything on this case....what they should do is pray that the plaintiff wouldn't get enough proof but too bad the plaintiff did :). Sorry ID( creationist) u lost..
559to916 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Im sure your terribly sorry lol this is still biased and it has an agenda so go ahead continue being brainwashed I wont disturb you
DeJay17Revolution 2 years ago
Actually the whole first part of the documentary seemed to show nothing but the intelligent design people and their "scientific" evidence, in the second time it was refuted. It seemed pretty 50/50 to me. They couldn't do it the other way round because there's just no way (as yet) to refute Theory of Evolution (which isn't even a theory anymore, it's scientific fact)
lili9000c 2 years ago
@lili9000c right on!
But dont forget the word theory means fact in sicence
DidntKnowWhatToPut1 1 year ago
acting like something is valid when it's not is not fair.
what you want is balance, but balance is neither fair nor honest, since the sides do not have equal weight.
pyr666 2 years ago
dont see why peope need to look for a god. The world is beutiful the way it is...
Guess its got something to do with childhood indoctrination. Everything your mama sayes is true...
105km 2 years ago 4
So ID is saying that: "This is complex, so it must have a designer", so someone can say that the designer is complex and must have a designer? Just curious.
Wuscar 2 years ago 5
The even greater riddle, to me, is they say that you can tell when you see something which is designed. Like finding a watch in the forest. You can just tell it was "created". But then they go on to say that because of the complexity of nature, it must be created or designed. Well if every damned thing is designed, what are you distinguishing the watch from? It's ALL created according to them, so how can you tell what's different, such as the watch in the forest?
rrpostalagain 2 years ago 2
Yes - an infinite regress. A never ending chain of Gods creating each other. And then us (whoops - that makes us "retard" Gods)
jazzx251 2 years ago 2
Thanks for this videos
3rdeyewildopen 2 years ago
Well, ID can't beat the TOE. But the Interrelaton Theory, I think, it can.
See
w3 interrelation-theory com
et00et 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We have no evidence of anyone building stonehenge. But do we believe that someone built it? Of course! Why? Because when we see a design, it is obvious that there must have been a designER.
What does this documentary prove? He still didn't explain how the complex flagellum were formed. So far, I've seen more evidence for ID than for Evolution, hands down.
kayk0522 2 years ago
Of course someone built it. And there a few scientific explanations, whom and how might have built it.
There are a feew running scientific theories about flagellum which explain its evolutionary process and on which groups its divided.
And WHICH exactly evidence so far u seen for ID? Not to mention hands down thing.
NotoHaters0 2 years ago 13
You have made the fallacy of thinking that whatever the observer deems to be rdered = design.
The accurate analogy would be if you encountered a multitude of stonehenges, and picked the one you just 'liked' the most, and held that up as evidence of ID - and ignored all the others.
cfytcf 2 years ago 7
Flagellum is formed from simpler organelle such as the Type III secretory and transport system. There are other theories of it as well:
Wiki: evolution of the flagella.
Just because at a point of time, something is unexplained, doesn mean we should use "designer" or "god" to explain it.
Science do not use "intuition" to characterize an observation. Just because by "intuition" something is "appears" designed doesn mean it is. Especially for a process so already understood such as evolution.
wildreams 2 years ago 22
@wildreams Laplace wrote a book on the formation of the Solar System, and Napoleon ask why he hadn't mentioned God. 'Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.' ("I had no need of that hypothesis.") Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, 'Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses.' ("Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains many things.")
gamesbok 10 months ago
A couple mistakes with your statement which I see over and over again.
Stonehenge is not alive, never was. Its not a organism.
Second if your statement was true, that doesn't mean it was God that made stonehenge. It could be anything and its wrong to just fill in the answer. Thats what I see most of the time. We don't know what happened, so it must be God. Thats just stupid.
Jahkillian 2 years ago
ignorant.
FuckReligiousPeople 2 years ago 6
Oh, the fucking pope! He's such an imbecile.
Ludde365 2 years ago 4
At 4.17 that guy Meyer is sooo busted. I almost feel sorry for him. Almost.
EliCross 2 years ago 2
id isnt science because most of the answers would be "god did it" and according to most of them its all 100% true so theres not really any point in teaching it except to cause trouble with all the other different beliefs of the class.
bigblakblob2 2 years ago 3
The Dover trial was not an "unequivocal defeat." It was a legal defeat, but it hardly settles the issue.
The narrator adds to that "Intelligent Design is not science," referring to the Dover decision.
That's kind of fascinating - we allow a judge (a philosopher) to decide for us what is and what isn't science.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
Well there are plenty of scientists who will reiterate that ID is not science.
However when scientists have applied the scientific method to ID the have been able to falsify it (for instance, Ireducible Complexity was torn to shreds when the flaggelum was shown to be reducible, same goes with the eye, ear, etc.)
Cowinspace 2 years ago 3
How can it not be science, and be falsifiable?
JackBlair2 2 years ago
Some things are not science, but can be falsified by/using science. Its just that, in this case, it was not the proponents that bothered to go out and do the testing. Normally you try to falsify your own hypothesis by testing it. Behe has never done the experiments, it was left to everyone else to show it up.
Science was used to shoot down the psuedoscience claptrap. It doesn't mean that ID is/was science.
Cowinspace 2 years ago
So why is everyone freaking out?
JackBlair2 2 years ago
Mostly because those who support ID want to force it into classrooms. If something like this gets in then you might as well let alchemy, astrology and magic in as well.
Whilst the ideas may deserve to be looked into, it's not really high school kids that should be lumbered with it. If anything of note was found then the schools just update their textbooks, and let those that are interested pursue careers in it. Those that arn't interested will go off and do what they want to do.
Cowinspace 2 years ago
"those who support ID want to force it into classrooms." So what? Everybody "wants" something.
The fact is, ID is not being taught in any schools.
This "cult of the child" thing you people have going on is VERY bizarre.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
Let me phrase it better. They want to force it in AS science. If it was in philosophical or religious classes then I have no problem.
What cult of the child thing? Children are impressionable and unable to clearly disinguish many things. Is it wrong to ask that they be taught, in science, that which is science and adhears to its principles. Would you have them teach the controversy in sex ed to include stork theory? Would you have them teach that the holocaust never happened?
Cowinspace 2 years ago
Let me repeat.
ID
IS
NOT
BEING
TAUGHT
IN
SCHOOLS
JackBlair2 2 years ago
Only because of the efforts of those in this series (and others of course).
Cowinspace 2 years ago
I think we should let magic in so we can make all the ID idiots disappear!!
kusalaviro 2 years ago 2
ID should be taught in schools, though.
Albeit in Religious Ed classes.
Or, at a strech, taught in History classes, but only in context.
Vehementi 2 years ago
As long as you include all other creation stories. After all the judeochristian myth is only one of many.
Cowinspace 2 years ago 4
To try and teach all creation myths would be an impossible task. However, many creation myths are taught in R.E and many ancient creation myths are taught in History. Although stupid, the Judeo-Christian creation myth has significantly influenced mankind's history to make being taught in History classes reasonable, and is believed by enough today to permit being taught in R.E. class.
DEFINATELY not in Science class, though. Science class should only teach students the facts.
Vehementi 2 years ago 2
is the story of king auther science?
is it falsifiable?
no and yes
bigblakblob2 2 years ago 2
But its not presented as science. Mind you it's interesting enough in itself to investigate.
Cowinspace 2 years ago
Dembski cannot sit there and lie and say he doesn't "know" whom he believes designed the bacteria flagellum. He was my professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The ID proponents love speaking in general terms to make their ideas seem scientific.
Gabe517 2 years ago 6
Attenborough fudges this. He sneaks in this statement about "all science being objective." (:55).
He says "science is an observational way of thinking." This does not make it "objective." History, literature, and philosophy can all be said to be "observational." Are these fields by nature less objective than science?
He (or the editors of this video) also mischaracterizes ID. It does not say "we can't find any evidence, and therefore it was made by God...
JackBlair2 2 years ago
Is there a supernatural God?..or is the energy behind life and behind our universe a natural creative energy...I believe the evolutionary process of natural selection are also guided by a natural energy of our cosmos....how about mathematical proof? Search videos by superwhuffo1
superwhuffo1 3 years ago
I'm just wondering, is there a part 6 to this. Ive got really interested, and then it just stopped abruptly at the end of video 5? Is there a video six and if so, may i please have a link?
Thank you
DoomKillerorSlayer 3 years ago
I like how you ID proponents keep ignoring the fact that if there is an intelligent designer, he needs to have been designed at some point. ID IS NOT SCIENCE!!!! It's mythology. It's forcing young minds to make decisions they are not equipped to make.
cowdragon 3 years ago 3
Mr. Coin is a smart man.
bigfilmhat 3 years ago
"Creationist Design" is a better term than "Intelligent Design".
bigfilmhat 3 years ago
I think the paper rough draft of the ID doctrine said it all;
when using an auto replace program to change "creationism" to "Intelligent design", they screwed up and at one point it read;
"creaintellitiongentdesignism"
pookabun 3 years ago 2
Design does not need to "postulate an entity at least as complicated as that which it is supposed to explain" if the entity is non-corporeal. A non-corporeal being is not physically complex. Dawkins is no philosopher.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
#1
You are correct: Dawkins is not a philosopher; he is a scientist, in particular, a biologist. However, the discussion at hand concerns not philosophy, in general; but rather, science, in particular. And since ID proponents regard their "theory" as a "scientific theory", they are required to answer scientific questions, bound by known laws, or varifiable new ones.
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
#2
As for an entity (i.e. "God") being non-corporeal, such a statement (or claim) is meaningless, until you can demonstrate its validity. Else, every undemonstrated and unvarifiable claims must be considered, even the seemingly ridiculous. The discussion would quickly spiral to nonsense!
Good luck!
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
I don't think it's meaningless. That is the same thing the logical positivists said. This view has been discredited by most philosophers in recent years.
There are many things that we cannot observe directly that we believe exist. Electrons and other subatomic particles for example. We can't see them but they are a good explanation from what we can observe. As far as the God hypothesis, this is the best explanation of the facts in my opinion.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
"Dan"
Again, you have digress. Again, the discussion at hand is not philosophy, in general; but science, in particular. And since ID "theorists" regard their "theory" as a "scientific theory", they must answer scientific questions. More specifically, they must begin with a clear, verifiable hypothesis; they must show evidences to support their hypothesis (or claims); they must test and re-test their hypothesis; and they must subject their "theory" to correct predictions and true, peer review.
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: The universe has a cause for its existence.
Since time/space/matter came into existence at the Big Bang, the cause must be (among other things) timeless, space-less, incorporeal, & unimaginably powerful. This cause I call God.
I think this explanation is just as plausible (and more so) than the multi-verse & other ideas I'm familiar with.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
In 1970 Steven Hawking published a paper that won him the Wolf prize in mathematics. In it he showed that the Universe began to exist a finite time ago in the past by an outside causal agent. Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross has a good discussion of this. When one looks at the anthropic principle it becomes clear that this causal agent must be unimaginable intelligent. See next post for that.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
The physical laws of nature, when given mathematical expression, contain various constants whose values are not determined by the laws themselves. These values are fine-tuned for life on a razors edge. When one assigns different values to these constants or forces, one discovers that the proportion of universes capable of supporting intelligent life is shockingly small. Just as slight variation in these values would render life impossible.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
For example, according to the physicist P.C.W. Davies, changes in either the gravitational constant or the weak force of only one part in 10 to the 100 (thats 1 with 100 zeros behind it) would have prevented a life permitting universe.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
Steven Hawking estimates that a decrease in the expansion rate of even one part in a hundred thousand million million one second after the Big Bang would have resulted in the universes recollapse long ago; a similar increase would have precluded the galaxies condensing out of the expanding matter.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
Much more could be said but I need to get to bed. You should read up on it. Of course many will disagree w/ the conclusions but perhaps you should investigate it with an open mind. Anyway, this cosmic fine tuning is either by chance necessity or design. Chance is ruled out mathematically (See Jonathan Lennox) and there is no necessity. This leaves us with design or a multi-verse. Occams Razor shaves off the multi-verse, again leaving design. I think its plausible and should not be ruled out.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
"Dan"
Thank you for your lengthy response. I wish, however, I could say more of it. That is, despite its length, your response lacks any real substance. Not only does it lack substance, it is filled with inconsistencies and contradictions. It is disappointing coming from someone who sounds philosophically mature. I think it is due in large part to you desperately wanting that there should be a "God", at the end!
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
However, before I dissect your reason and destroy your unfounded hope, I would like to make one thing absolutely clear so that there be no misunderstanding; particularly coming from those who share your view. That is, at the very heart of our discussion, what brought you and I here in the first place, is the attempt by a small, well-organized, well-funded, religiously motivated group to challenge the Theory of Evolution by proposing a so called "Theory of Intelligent Design",...
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
yr1ntrly-
Thanks for your responses as well.
QUOTE"at the very heart of our discussion... is the attempt by a small... group to challenge the Theory of Evolution by proposing a so called 'Theory of Intelligent Design'"
Absolutely false. The thrust of my comments have been about the anthropic principle and cosmology. This is NOT synonymous with ID. Francis Collins and John Polkinghorne for example are evolutionists who would agree with my position on the anthropic principle.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
...which is nothing more than Christian Creationism in suitable dressing (If you cannot admit that much, then you are intellectually dishonest!).
But whether you are willing to admit it or not, the Theory of Evolution is a well-constructed and well-confirmed scientific theory. There area wide range of date, information, and hard evidences (from the fossil records to modern genetics) supporting the claims, predictions, and ultimately explanations of the Theory of Evolution for the...
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
QUOTE"...which is nothing more than Christian Creationism in suitable dressing"
That depends on how you are defining Creationism. If it's defined by its founders such as Henry Morris as the belief in a young earth which was created in six literal days then you are flat wrong. If you define it yourself then it can mean whatever you want.
QUOTE"If you cannot admit that much, then you are intellectually dishonest!"
These kinds of comments get us nowhere.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
...diversity of life on this planet. All to which, by the way, "intelligent" design is completely silent: no explanation, no predictions, no applicatoins!
Yet, you go on about the origin of the universe, which, in case you are not aware, the Theory of Evolution is not concerned about. The Theory of Evolution takes a priori the existence of life (even at the fundamental level), and from there, through the process of natural selection, along with other mechanisms (and not just pure chance,...
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
QUOTE"Yet, you go on about the origin of the universe, which, in case you are not aware, the Theory of Evolution is not concerned about."
Yes, of course. Natural selection is meant to explain living systems.
I think perhaps we were crossing lines. I have not been arguing for ID in most of my posts. I though I made it clear that I was simply saying that there are good reasons to believe in God. Perhaps I was not clear on that. Sorry.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
...as you like to make it sound), life evolves, creating diversity. By concerning yourself with the larger question of 'how' life came to be, you are moving out the realm of biology, and into chemical evolution (or abiogenesis), and ultimately into physics itself.
Thus, without lost, I can, with due respect to you personally, end our debate here by merely calling your constant digression as: Irrevelant! However, I will not do so; since you are fond of philosophical digression, I will...
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
...be kind and accommodate you. But just so that I can hammer my point home: "Intelligent" design has failed miserably and shamefully in its to disprove the Theory of Evolution, and you have not even touched upon the subject!
Now, when I said I was disappointed in you, I truly meant it! You merely pawned the work of others, that is, the thoughts of others off as your own. It is one thing to be in intellectual agreeement with someone; but it is shamefull to not think for yourself,...
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
yr1ntrly -
It would be really nice if you could stop insulting me.
MY POINTS HAVE HAD VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH ID. If you did not want to talk about the anthropic principle and the existence of God. If you want to keep insulting me with comments about ID that fine but you are building straw-men. I have not spoken hardly at all about ID in this discussion. However, if you want me to I will tell you why I think SOME of the arguments for Darwinian evolution are weak.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
...to not speak for yourself, and to merely accept something because it suits your philosophical (and I suspect, religious) biasness!
But to start, I do not necessarily agree with, or, at the very least, am suspicious of, the premise that "everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence". For someone who said that "positivists" have been "discredited" by many philosophers, you sound sure positive of your position. Though as common-sense as such a statement sounds, modern...
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
QUOTE"For someone who said that 'positivists' have been "discredited" by many philosophers"
No, no, no. I hope you are joking. This is not what logical positivism is. And it's not many philosophers that have rejected it, it's all professionals. Logical positivists believed that only that which is emperically verifiable could be established as true, therefore talk of God was meaningless to them.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
...science (i.e. quantum mechanics and quantum field theory) has challenged our common-sense understanding of what we regard as "reality", including our cherished notion of "causality". Since you mentioned Steven Hawkings, who, I am sure would not agree with you re-interpreting his hardwork to suit your religiouis hope, let me share with you a statement he made regarding the possible origin of the universe:...
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
"science (i.e. quantum mechanics and quantum field theory) has challenged our common-sense understanding of what we regard as 'reality', including our cherished notion of 'causality'".
There are at least ten interpretations of quantum mechanics and no one knows which is right if any. The Copenhagen theory has the idea of something coming from nothing i.e. magic.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
..."I now think I can show how the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science. The universe exists, because general relativity and quantum theory allow and require it to exist. If I'm right, the universe is self-contained, and is governed by science alone."
Of course, you are welcomed, and are encouraged to disagree; but if you do so, then you will only be making my point for me: that no one, including Steven Hawkings, and certainly you,...
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
...has the answer to the ultimate question of where the universe came from. And for you, with you common-place "thinking" and unsubstantiated claims, to have the audacity to make the sweeping conclusion that "God" is the origin of all things, is laughable! But even if I were to entertain your premise in earnest, I cannot take your conclusion seriously! You merely gave a name to an event that you assume must have happened. In your own words: "This [the cause of the universe] I called "God""...
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
You really like insulting people. You started off nice then became very rude.
Anyway, if you want to believe that something comes from nothing based on the Copenhagen theory, that's your business. I think its worse than magic however. At least the magician has his hat to begin with before he pulls his rabbit out.
If we reject causality then science dies since science is the search for causes. We lose the ability to ask "why" since the answer becomes "nothing caused this to happen".
danjoeblue 3 years ago
danjoeblue: I don't think you can claim a philosophical preference that science must adhere to a linear causal chain. A scientific theory that claims that A exist causes B and that B causes A seems perfectly sensible and testable, so long as there are logical rules that govern which events are capable in theory of causing other events. Then, at least in principle, the intuitive notion that every event must have a cause (Minus the assumed: THAT PRECEDES IT IN A TEMPORAL SEQUENCE!) can be kept. .
MatthewSAckerman 3 years ago
and we can still have a universe that adheres to physical principles, and had a beginning without a temporally proceeding cause.
MatthewSAckerman 3 years ago
If the Universe began to exist it must have had some sort of cause. Things do not just pop into existence out of nothing. This is magic-- not science and not serious metaphysics. Either the "stuff" of the Universe has always existed (which has major philosophical problems) or it began to exist. If it began it must have had a cause.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
Hello there my "friend"
First off, I apologize if you feel offended by my posts. I could not resist having a laugh here and there. However, I think throughout my choice of words has always been civil. But as I have said before, your arguments can, at best, only be entertained, and not taken seriously as a challenge to science.
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
Science does not claim to know everything, and certainly does not claim to have the answer to the ultimate question of where the universe came from. Yet, you are! And for what reasons? A few simple arguments based on filter that filters nothing! You lack evidences of any kind, and any kind you do have come from science, which continues to seek for answers. Unlike you, who has already reached an unfounded sweeping conclusion!
yr1ntrly 3 years ago 2
"Science does not... claim to have the answer to the ultimate question of where the universe came from. Yet, you are! And for what reasons? A few simple arguments based on filter that filters nothing! You lack evidences of any kind, and any kind you do have come from science... Unlike you, who has already reached an unfounded sweeping conclusion!"
Notice this response does not actually refute the Kalam argument. It just insults the one making it. Moreover it misrepresents it!
danjoeblue 3 years ago
"# 5 is foolish. It is greater for a being to exist than to not exist. To argue otherwise is silly."
Says who? The inverse principle shows that non-existence is just as much of a perfection as existence. How is that silly?
fuckgusto 3 years ago
A conclusion, I am sorry to say, and I am sure one you may not admit it, is part of your religious makeup. That is, behind your philosophical arguments for a "God" lies your religious belief in a "personal God", not just some mere "cause". And if I can venture a further guess, I say in particular the Christian "God". But again, take Occam's Razor to it, and see what happens! Talking about magic!
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
I happened to read this post that I ignored a couple months ago.
QUOTE:"A conclusion, I am sorry to say, and I am sure one you may not admit it, is part of your religious makeup. That is, behind your philosophical arguments for a 'God' lies your religious belief in a "personal God", not just some mere 'cause'."
This sounds very similar if not identical to what philosophers call the genetic fallacy. Even if I believe in God based on false reasons, this does not mean God doesn't exist!
danjoeblue 3 years ago
Anyhow, it has been fun, our little excursion into philosophy. And yes, I do know the idea of "positivism"; I was just having a little fun at your expense, for you are, yourself, unwarrantedly too "positive". But alas, it matters not. Your arguments show nothing (just the same spin over and over!). Nonetheless, I wish you luck. And a good farewell.
YR1NTRLY
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
Does it have to have a cause? Explain why pls
Assmodean 3 years ago
Perhaps you do not understand: Time is not an abstract linear sequence of event. Time is not flat, just like the earth is not flat. Just like the earth has no edge, time may have no edge. Things in the past may be caused by things in the future.
In this view, their is no more difficulty in explaining the origin of the universe, than there is in explaining its existence at any subsequent time.
MatthewSAckerman 3 years ago
The original point about causality that I was making was in terms of things coming into existence. Nothing comes from nothing. For something to begin to exist it must have a cause. This is at least more plausible than its negation. 'A' cannot cause 'B' to exist if 'B' caused 'A' to exist because for this to happen one would have to create the other before it existed. This is irrational.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
...Well, if that is what you call "God" then you and I are not in dispute; but I can assure you that most "ID theorists", along with religious fanatics, would quickly, even violently disagree you. It is like someone who considers "God" as the pervading energy throughout the universe -- such a person would find "God" in a pile of dung (idea credited to Physicists Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize recipient in physics)...
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
...But to go on. You then went on about the "fine tuning" of the universal constants, and how such "tuning" imples a "God". First off, for all this talk, you have yet to define specifically what you mean by "God"; I am sure you did not mean a pile of dung. Not only have you not define what you mean by "God" (though I am certain you want "it" to mean in the "personal sense"), you committed a glaring contradiction by describing "God" (something yet undefined) as "unimaginably powerful" and...
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
"you committed a glaring contradiction by describing "God" (something yet undefined) as "unimaginably powerful" and..."
What? Whatever the force was that brought the universe into existence is unimaginably powerful. You disagree? OK, then something unimaginably weak brought it into existence? Is that what you believe?
I don't start with a definition. I let the logical deduction do the defining for me. One of those deduction is the fact that whatever created the Universe is powerful.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator. 3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement. 4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
fuckgusto 3 years ago
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing. 6. Therefore, God does not exist.
fuckgusto 3 years ago
One word came to mind when I read your "argument": Sophistry.
Premise 1 cannot be proved.
Premise 4 is irrational. For a being to have a handicap a being must exist. Non-existence is not a handicap, it is non-existence.
# 5 is foolish. It is greater for a being to exist than to not exist. To argue otherwise is silly.
# 6 does not follow since 1,4, and 5 are false.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
It's satirical. Ever heard of The Ontological Argument?
fuckgusto 3 years ago
I recognized as a spin off of the ontological argument but I didn't know if you were serious. I'm familiar with Anselm's, Descarte's & Plantinga's versions of the argument.
Can you really conceive of something being perfect that is superior not existing than existing?
Think of the most perfect ice cream cone you enjoy. Isn't the existence of that superior to the non-existence? A silly illustration, but I'm trying to make the point.
P.S. I am not defending the ontological argument here.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
Well, which is more perfect? To exist or not exist? LOL, personally this is quite subjective to a certain extend.
Logically speaking, to most people, to exist is certainly more perfect.
But some people might feel, to not exist, physically, but exist in a persons memory or imagination to be more aesthetically "perfect" then to exist.
Because if you do not exist you are uncorruptable.
Of course, u might argue otherwise.
LoL, just my 2cents XD
wildreams 3 years ago
wildreams- Interesting perspective. Thanks.
Perhaps the person's imagination would be more satisfied and think that the thought of an object is more perfect in imagination than in reality. However, *for the object itself*, it is more perfect to exist than to not exist. Not-existing cannot be perfect because it is literally nothing. An object that does not exist has no attributes (including perfection) at all in and of itself because it has nothing at all since it does not exist.
Peace-
danjoeblue 3 years ago
Certainly. This view is completely valid.
Just build on a bit on wad i mentioned. Actually, existence can take on another meaning too.
For example, an idea, it might not physically exist, but it certainly exist as an imaginary concept. However, it could be a "perfect" concept, a powerful concept with the ability to change people's life and such. Ever watch the Batman movies? lol
As such, God need not exist physically, but remain perfect, as an idea, with the ability to change peoples life.LOL
wildreams 3 years ago
..."unimaginab[ly] intelligent". Well, if "God" is so "unimaginab[le]", how did you come to conceive of such a "thing"? And if you are only describing certain attributes of "God", I want to know how you came to such an "understanding", when in you confess that you do not think "there is empirical, observable, airtight, scientific evidence for "God""? Ironically, thought is there is no "scientific evidence for "God"", you used scientific facts, i.e. the universal constants, to conclude...
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
QUOTE:I want to know how you came to such an "understanding", when in you confess that you do not think "there is empirical, observable, airtight, scientific evidence for "God""? Ironically, thought is there is no "scientific evidence for "God"", you used scientific facts, i.e. the universal constants, to conclude..."
You have no idea what the nature of proof and evidence is, do you? Yes, of course scientific theories can support claims without proving them airtight. You don't understand this?
danjoeblue 3 years ago
...that "God" exists! Also, as an aside, if "God" is so "powerful", why the "fine tuning"? -- sounds like "God" was compelled!
Which, now, brings me to my main objection of your entire "logic". But before I do so, when I said that you pawned the work of others, I war referring in particular to William Dembski. Yes, I know your took his idea of the "explanatory filter" to make reach "your" conclusion. Just in case you did not know, his idea is not respected, whether philosophically or...
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
I was using the concepts of necessity, chance and design which are common to Dembski's filter, but I was not using the filter itself to come to the conclusion I did.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
...mathematically. He is no "Isaac Newton of information theory"! Isaac Newton invented a whole branch of mathematics to describe what he perceieved in the physical world; William Dembski, a fourth rate mathematician, similar to you stealing Steven Hawkings ideas, took and re-interpreted the mathematics of others (namely, Shannon and Kolmorgorov), to reach indefensible conclusion!
Again, as I have said before seeks to know what it does not know; not by merely ending inquiry by saying...
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
...that an "intelligence" made it so; but by pushing forward, investigating, and, if need be, refining old theories and constructing new theories along the way. So, though scientists do not yet understand the reason(s) behind the universal constants, it does not necessarily mean that there is no reason(s) as you suggested. As a matter of fact, they are searching for the answer(s) as we speak. And given the relentless progress of science, maybe someday a fundamental reason(s) will be found...
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
...to explain those constants (unlike you, who tries to end inquiry by saying "God" made it so). Thus, for you to use Dembski's "explanatory filter" to suggest that there are only three possibilities -- chance, necessity, or design -- is arrogantly absurd!
Dembski's filter, in case you are not aware, have been discredited, and no one in the intellectual arena takes it seriously, for it is too sweeping in its assertion and conclusion. Dembski assumes he can know of all...
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
...probabilities and possibilities in order to even begin ruling any one of them out as a candidate for explanation of an event. But, of course, he does not! Nor do you! You cannot say, for example, "no necessity" so blanketly unless you can demonstrate that there is ABSOLUTELY no other, fundamental reason behind the seemingly "fine tuning". But, of course, you cannot! Don't kid yourself! As for Occam's Razor, it is not a law of science, it is a guiding principle. Occam's Razor...
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
...certainly rule out the strangeness of quantum field theory; but time and time over, quantum field theory has stood the test of experiments! If Occam's Razor does apply in general, it must be used with great care, and great sensitivity to the events under consideration!
Plus, in case you did not notice something peculiar about Dembski's "explanatory filter": the case for "design" is a negative argument: it is based on ruling out all other explanations...
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
You know nothing of the anthropic principle. You know nothing of the work of P.C.W. Davies, Robert Jastrow and John Polkinghorne (who are evolutionists) yet you assume omniscience in your position and bring a barrage insults on me. Once someone whom I am dialogging insults me with no end in sight, I bow out. I don't think its very mature to put people down like that. I am sure you will take this as a great victory for yourself. Pat yourself on the back, my friend. Goodbye.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
CORRECTION
Once someone whom I am dialogging *with* insults me.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
...winning by default, only: it does not stand on its own as a viable and verifiable theory! But not only that, Dembski's filter fails miserably in ruling out everything (which is what it needs to do)! Thus, "design" does not explain anything, predict anything, or enhance anything, advancing further understanding! It is, in short, the "God of Gaps" in cheap clothings!
YR1NTRLY.
Sorry, our discussion has to end here. I have heard your arguments to many times to find it at all interesting!
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
Pardon me again: I thought faster than I wrote, so some words are missing; but I am sure as an "intelligent" person, you can fill in the gaps.
Also, just curious, for fun, have you ever thought of using Occam's Razor on, say, the Bible? -- I think it would shred the Bible into undiscernable pieces!
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
#2
Also, as interesting as speculative philosophy is, I do not care to indulge in such matters. It does not matter whether "logical positivists" has been "discredited" or not. I am not one. And science does not claim to know anything absolutely. As a matter of fact, if anything at all, science has challenged our understanding, our intuition, and our beliefs. But nonetheless, what science claims, it can demonstrate: logically, mathematically, and experimentally.
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
#3
And for the things science does not know, it seeks to know. Not by merely ending inquiry by saying that an "intelligent designer" made it so; but by pushing forward, investigating, and, if need be, refining old theories and constructing new theories along the way. Indeed, that is the weakness of your position: I called your original claim "meaningless" and asked for demonstration; your response was merely you "[DON'T THINK]" it is "meaningless".
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
#4
You went on further saying that the "God hypothesis" is the "best explanation" of the facts. Why? Because it is your "[OPINION]". I am sorry, but that will not do. Again, even ID "theorists" do not say that (though, everyone knows what they would like to say). And to go back to your favorite subject, philosophy, I am sure philosophers, or better yet, philosophy students would dismiss your line of "reasoning" and thus "conclusion"!
Again, good luck!
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
I don't have time to respond to everything you say. The "facts" of the Universe that are best explained by a super intelligence in my opinion are those that are referred to by the name, "anthropic principle". Many astronomers including P.C.W. Davies have been persuaded by this argument. I would encourage you to research it. Davies would be good to read as would John Leslie and John Polkinghorne.
There are many philosophers who agree though you are right that some would dismiss it, of course.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
"Dan"
To start, thank you for the pleasant exchanges. Unfortunately, I cannot say that it was enlightening. As much as I would like to take what you say seriously, but the very fact that you cannot substantiate your claims only reaffirm the weakness of your position. As for the authors you recommended, I can too, in turn, recommend books for you to read. But there is little point in that: in any serious debate, we have to trust that our opponent has read enough to have an earnest discussion.
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
yr1ntrly-
Your welcome and likewise. It's nice to talk with someone who disagrees yet is respectful. Thanks.
Anyway, I don't have much time lately which is why I don't give you much info. I have a family, a full time job, and am attending college, BUT, I will try to give you about fifteen minutes to unpack and "substantiate" at least a little bit of where I stand on some things lately.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
If science by definition rules out an outside causal agent, designer or explanation for nature (as the textbooks do) then of course we cannot regard the God hypothesis as science. However, I think that we should look for the real explanation whatever it may be and not rule out possibilities a priori. If you disagree, OK that's fine, you don't need to call what I believe science, but that does not mean the explanation can't be plausible or true. Science is not the final arbiter of truth.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
Now before I get into evidence let me say this, I don't think there is empirical, observable, airtight, scientific evidence for God. Any skeptic who is waiting for that will never find it. However, what I do think is that there are many good reasons to think that "God" exists. The arguments I would offer would be cumulative. I don't think that one of them alone gives us compelling reason but taken together I think they make a more plausible case for God than the negation.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
#2
But, again, science is more than just reading books and accepting views that suit our personal and philosophical predispositions. At the end of the day, any scientific claims must be backed by evidences, by testable and re-testable experiments, and must ultimately stand on their own. Argument by authority will not do. The history of science is littered with examples contradicting such a tenuous position!
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
#3
However, in case you would like to consider ID as a "paradigm shift" of some sort, as some do, I would like to say in advance that such a position is laughable. Especially when you compare it to true scientific revolutions, as personified by Galileo, Newton, Einstein, or Bohr (and others). Scientific revolutions come from the insights of individuals, not from a multimillion dollars think-tank with a clear religious agenda!
Sincerely, YR1NTRLY
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
"There are many things that we cannot observe directly that we believe exist." Seeing is not the only form of evidence. The scientific theory involving electrons is clear for those who try hard to understand it, it is consistent, it is not contradictory, and is evidently correct enough for your computer to continue to run as you read this. The Bible is not even consistent with itself, requiring the reader to discard at least part of it just believe the rest of it. Proof? Please read all of it.
CB1300Black 3 years ago
CB1300Black-
I am not debating the doctrine of innerancy here, thank you.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
Pardon my spelling: "verifiable" not "varifiable".
yr1ntrly 3 years ago
What advocates of Intelligent Design do not seem to grasp is the massive amounts of "screw ups" that would be attributed to a designer. Why are our eyes on backwards and upside down? What about the parasitic eye worm that can live in no other environment than a child's eye which slowly bores it's way through eventually blinding the child. What of the collapsing universes and imploding stars too? If there was a designer responsible I wouldn't let him design my garden shed.
bonangusacdc 3 years ago 2
Please re-read Genesis 1. You can not believe God and evolution at the same time. Please give specific examples where you believe science and God's word conflict. John 3- Are you born again? The spirit is like the wind- you can not see it, but you can feel it and see the evidence of it.
jojojosmart 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Bible does not say science is evil, but that man is sinful. In fact, science validates the Bible. And vice versa.
jojojosmart 3 years ago
I'm a strong Christian and a scientist but I cannot agree that science validates the bible and vice versa. Spiritual truth is supernatural and in a very different realm from science. Evolution is not distracting people from God. Instead, Intelligent Design is a suicidal attack on Christianity itself.
Why are we creating a controversy when there is none? There are tons of other scientific theories to attack too if we follow the logic of Christian I.D. proponents.
bjchua 3 years ago
"Science validates the Bible"
hum....
Have you ever read a book that was written after the middle ages? Because you seem to be unaware the few centuries of discovery made after that time.
Falloutmoon 3 years ago
I've completed several college courses in geology, biology, and archaeology. We've certainly made several discoveries since the middle ages. All have given more credibility to the truth of God's word.
jojojosmart 3 years ago
You might have taken college classes but you need to take them again and get a passing grade.
Or if indeed you managed to pass then you should ask for a refund because you clearly have been misinformed.
Unless you have made these discoveries in which case you should share them with the rest of the scientific community, there's a nobel prize waiting for you...
All that science has done since the middle ages is push the god concept further and further into hiding.
Falloutmoon 3 years ago
Let's hear some of these specific discoveries that have enlightened you to the absense of intelligent design. The only absense of intelligence I have discovered is yourself. Mr. Brainiac.
jojojosmart 3 years ago
Before you call me "Brainiac" I would like to point out the fact that despite your so-called "college courses" (in scientific fields no less) you seem oblivious that you do not "proof a negative"; it's a counter productive and indeed idiotic way to approach science. What you do is that if you are convinced of having evidence that supports ID then you should submit it for peer review and if it is conclusive, like I said, it's Nobel galore for you...
Falloutmoon 3 years ago
Now I could humor you and start a diatribe on the overwhelmingly large amount in favor of evolution spanning fields of inquiry from chemistry to biology etc etc etc...However I would hope that at your age, you should be able to make that research for yourself as an intelligent / curious mind would.
But of course, it's a plague on creationists to fail to be able to rise to that elementary step in scientific inquiry as Behe as shown many times over (cfr Dover trial transcripts).
Falloutmoon 3 years ago
It's interesting to note , by the way, that NO RESEARCH is being done in ID... NOWHERE...
That should allow you to draw a pretty obvious conclusion that even a 5 year old could come up with, that being : " there's just no ground for research there".
Also if evolution were to be proven false someday, it would still say nothing about ID. And if you can not grasp that simple nothing, it's not a refund you should seek but the death penalty for whomever did a pathetic job teaching you these notions.
Falloutmoon 3 years ago
The only example you have given for the absence of intelligent design is your own absence of intelligence. My first example is open your eyes and look at God's creation- you might begin with a sunrise. If you choose to ignore that, try one of His sunsets. A fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God'.
jojojosmart 3 years ago
Are you mentally retarded or just american? :)
Your failure to find intelligence in my prose is not a sign of a lack thereof; I honestly don't think you would recognize Intelligence even if it smacked a bible on the empty shell sitting on your neck.
Once again and I'll try to go "Blues clues level" for you, the burden of proof lies with the side making the positive claim.
Falloutmoon 3 years ago