Fallacy of intelligent design-circular reasoning.

[GuyThreepwoody]

Yes, we are all familiar with circular reasoning thanks!

God doesn’t exist because scientists say so, and we can trust them because they don’t believe in God…

[MrIntelligentdesign]

Irreducible complexity is not the definition of intelligence. See my videos for correct information.

[MrIntelligentdesign]

Irreducible complexity is not the definition of intelligence.

[Shlontify]

Okay, but every claim to a highest authority MUST appeal ultimately to that authority for justification; to appeal outside of it is to undermine the "ultimate" authority of that authority. Science says science is the highest authority because it is "scientific" to do so! Those who believe in facts say "Facts are the way to go because FACTS have always been facts." Whether they hide it in long discussions or not, anyone who believes in a highest authority- appeals in circular fashion to it.

[DragonGreenFire]

@Shlontify "Science says science is the highest authority because it is "scientific" to do so!"

Science doesn't claim to be the highest athority. Thats why the highest rank in science is 'Theory,' not 'Fact.' No one who knows how science really is ment to work would say that it is the ultumate athority. Also, by definition, it would be "scientific" to use science.

[BoundInChains]

I had this question in one of my examination papers.please help.

Which one of the following is an example of a circular argument?

1) God created man in his own image and man created God in his own image

2) God is the source of a scripture and the scripture is the source of our knowledge of God

3) Some of the Indians are great coz India is great

4) Rama is great coz he is Rama

[lukeg411]

Please people Check out William Lane Craig he debates leading atheist philosophers, Also Gary Habermas and others being stupid and circular is not a prerequisite for being a Christian

[yct1337]

This guy says that science proves itself by saying it's science, that is incorrect, science proves itself by physical evidence and with this evidence we get a better idea of the subject and from that we develop new a hypothesis in an attempt to reach a theory and a theory is the best known explanation for the subject

[Shlontify]

@yct1337 And science tells you that's the way you go, because science says so: that's circular reasoning.

[yct1337]

@Shlontify cool you explained what circular reasoning is but you fail to understand how science works.

[biznauer]

My next eyebrow was raised at 7:05 when you ASSUME that the observation of "intelligent agents" include ALL intelligent agents. You also ASSUME that the term "intelligent agent" is meant to transcend the agent: "life". The statement was simply remaining unspecified as to the context of the agent we're dealing with, be it a child or adult, doctor or janitor. The context of the "agent" remains unspecified. This does not mean to suggest that "ALL" conceivable intelligent agents produce COI's.

[biznauer]

Next, at 4:20 Judy was observed stealing things. When Billy's textbook went missing, the circumstances bared the characteristics of a theft. Let's not jump to conclusions as to WHO stole the book, but according to Billy, it didn't simply vanish, Someone HAS stolen the book.

[biznauer]

At 7:35 your statements begin to resemble swiss cheese, and by the next statement at 7:50 your conclusions become just plain false. That is, if you mean to apply this charge of circular reasoning against a true Bible student, and not just some radical creationist. A true Bible student will begin, as you said a person should, with an observation rather than an assumption.

[biznauer]

In regards to the choice of infinite regression, you neglect the modest boundary of our ability, as humans, to understand EVERYTHING, we cannot yet. Conveniently, you failed to mention that it doesn't matter which way you go between two possible conclusions, we cannot comprehend either conclusions: COIs being the product of some intelligent agent, be it LI or NLI (let's not get ahead of ourselves) who had no beginning; or COIs, energy, and matter coming into existence spontaneously from nothing.

[Key2daUnderground]

BEAUTIFUL. thanks for posting this vid. I just responded to someone's circular argument and they actually are stating how a circular argument makes sense - blew my mind.

[CiciSteamer]

There is and never will be proof of an intelligent designer be that Shiva, Yahweh or an alien. With logic like that science will get nowhere.

Keep it in the philosophy classes.

[DINDRAGON]

loved both point and music <3

[Grendelwolfx]

Here is a loop hole in your whole theory.

I bury my comic book collection.

Thousands of years later future civilizations dig them up.

They believe from reading the comics that the X-men really existed, Thor is a God, Spider man was real, etc. If you go by the archeological evidence or lack of you would believe they are texts from God.

[Grendelwolfx]

LMFAO. you are an idiot. Science is based on things that can be seen, touched, heard, or smelled. There is no proof that God even exist.

NLI can't exist, because you have to live in order to think, you have to think in order to create. And thinking requires the mix of chemicals that interact with a physical brain.

saying an intelligent vampire is an NLI is wrong. Even though it's undead, it still requires a psychical body. Hence forth in one way or another it is living.

[ThatOneQuestion]

Great video, powerstone2, you have a new subscriber!

The old arguments for ID are intellectually bankrupt as they are nothing but lies and deceit.

Anyone wanting to challenge that, with any hope of not appearing like a fool, should educate themselves on the Dover trial.

[kainestolkyn]

It took about 29 seconds before you setup a strawman and attacked it. Your video is using logical fallacies to argue. I think I've found the missing link for evolutionists. It's man: Something's missing between his ears.

[ThatOneQuestion]

"It took about 29 seconds before you setup a strawman and attacked it. "

No, it isn't a strawman, kid, you are wrong.

"Your video is using logical fallacies to argue"

Wrong again. He is using the logical fallacies of ID to destroy ID.

Arrogant little boy. Helps if you actually know what those big words are when you use them.

Dont embarrass yourself again.

[shilohwillcome]

DaveDoggOwns,

Dude, you are still not making any sense, yes he would not do anything else because it's not in his nature do to anything else. That's like saying he is limited because he can't go against his nature, which is a simpler argument than what you gave, but just as meaningless.

[DaveDoggOwns]

"That's like saying he is limited because he can't go against his nature, which is a simpler argument than what you gave, but just as meaningless."

Well, it just shows that a limitless being with attributes cannot exist.

[shilohwillcome]

eh, I'm a limitless being with attributes and I exist. I'm pretty sure you are as well. But even still, I don't see how this says God is limitless in the sense I'm speaking of.

[ThatOneQuestion]

"eh, I'm a limitless being with attributes and I exist."

Arrogant assumption.

Prove that you are limitless.

Oh, the bible is your proof? Why, because it said so? Sorry, that isn't proof, and your assertion is meaningless.

[Esuric86]

Atheists are quick to point out the circular arguments of Theists while completely ignoring the fact that their entire logic is based on circular, fallacious logic:

1: How do you know that things are capable of creating themselves?

2: Through examining the development of the Universe, namely space-time, and life.

3: How do you know that animals and the universe created themselves?

4: Because life and the universe did in fact create themselves.

[DaveDoggOwns]

"1: How do you know that things are capable of creating themselves?"

Wrong, no one saids things are capable of creating themselves. That's essentially the same thing as saying "You had to exist before you existed" which sounds absurd. No one saids things are self-creating.

[DaveDoggOwns]

We just examine the universe and its objects and conclude that since we cannot will them away that it is all objective truth. We don't observe the universe an conclude "something created it" for that would be the same thing as saying "The universe had to exist before it existed" which is an absurdity.

You need to learn to use Occam's Razor. God is just an unproveable, self-contradictory, extra non-answer to explain the non-existent begining of the universe.

[Esuric86]

The universe at one point did in fact not exist. Physics will tell you that all the energy and matter we see today was present in the singularity, which was absent of space-time. Meaning, everything existed just nowhere and never up until the big bang. Seem kinda fuzzy? Physics will never ever explain the cause of the big bang, it is impossible, math breaks down in the singularity. Now, it either caused it self, or was caused by some exterior factor, a third option may be possible.

[DaveDoggOwns]

No it did not cause itself. Scientists don't say at one point nothing existed and than the big bang...no they say the universe started expanding at the Big Bang.

"Now, it either caused it self, or was caused by some exterior factor, a third option may be possible."

The universe is defined as everything that exists so there cannot be a "third option", for that would be the same thing as saying "The universe had to exist before it existed."

[Esuric86]

No, scientists will tell you, that their are many versions of the universe which are super-imposed on top of each other, this is known as "the string theory", or, "the M theory."

[DaveDoggOwns]

I can allready see what your trying to do there and it won't work. A self-contradictory being cannot "portrude" in anyway into our logically consistent universe. There can never be places where contradiction equals falsehood, 2+2=5, or existent square circles.

Is is not that I can't understand God, it is that he is impossible. I'm not saying infinity is impossible I'm saying certain infinities are impossible such as infinite power, or knowledge, etc.

[Esuric86]

Yes, God is unprovable, the definition of proof relies on physical evidence which is observable, or subsequent observable effects. Since god, according to theists, does not reside in this realm he/it/they will not be observable. Theists would claim that everything you see would be the work of god, atheists argue that their is no proof. But atheist should understand that the theists conclusion is just as logical or non-logical as their conclusion.

[Esuric86]

God is not self-contradictory, only if you bind him to the laws of this universe, namely causality and contingency, does the notion of god appear illogical or paradoxical. I know that believing in some external creator is absolutely absurd, definitely not as logical as nothing creating everything, but it is merely another option. Atheists need to get off their high horse and realize that they say nothing original, nothing of importance.

[DaveDoggOwns]

"God is not self-contradictory, only if you bind him to the laws of this universe"

Yes, he is. Omnipotence is impossible. Omniscience is impossible. Both at the same time is impossible. A being without limits is impossible.(if it has no limits than it has no characteristics. If it has no characteristics it has no identity. If it has no identity than how can he exist?) A being cannot be limitless and have characteristics at the same time.

[Esuric86]

Omniscience and omnipotence does not entail a lacking of characteristics, in fact it means a being with infinite ability, this is hard to understand or conceptualize since we have no experience with such an object/being. Much like how it is nearly impossible for many humans do conceptualize any dimension greater than the third, but there are 11 dimensions,(according to physics). People need to understand that though we have progressed a long way we are very far from understanding our reality.

[DaveDoggOwns]

"Omniscience and omnipotence does not entail a lacking of characteristics"

Exactly so it is absurd to believe in a being that has no limits. A being without limits is essentially static. If you ascribe any characterists about him than you are giving him things he is limited to. Being without limits AND has characterists such as omnipotence and omniscience is self-contradictory.

[shilohwillcome]

Please be more explicit, how exactly are these incompatible? His attributes are omniscience and omnipotence, why is this a contradiction?

[DaveDoggOwns]

1)If he is omniscient then he must know what he is going to do.

2)What is known must be fixed

3)This means he is powerless to do anything else that what he knows he is going to do

4)Therefore he cannot be both all-powerful and omniscient at the same time.

[shilohwillcome]

DaveDoggOwns,

Dude, you are still not making any sense, yes he would not do anything else because it's not in his nature do to anything else. That's like saying he is limited because he can't go against his nature, which is a simpler argument than what you gave, but just as meaningless.

[sonic8005]

It means if he doesn't want something to happen, but is somehow "unable" to stop it, then he's not omnipotent. Omnipotence is a self-contradicting idea, because you can't do EVERYTHING all the time, I mean, can God make a rock so big he cannot lift it? YOu can't really weasel out of said question by "his nature" arguments. Besides, if he's really omnipotent, then why is he limited to one form of nature you prescribe to him?

[DaveDoggOwns]

If you give him attributes than you are giving him things he is limited to(it doesn't matter even if the attributes give him infinity in some regard), or in other words a characteristic. He can't be both limitless and have limits such at being limited to omniscience, omnipotence, all-mercyful, etc at the same time.....

[shilohwillcome]

you just keep repeating yourself and I still don't see the inconsistency.

[ThatOneQuestion]

"you just keep repeating yourself and I still don't see the inconsistency."

That failure is not his fault, it is yours.

[MMA4Christ]

Good video, but without a standard of Truth we wouldn't know what ideas are illogical & deception. This is why God's word survives and is truth. God proves himself, the word's majestic truth that is from God's own mind overcomes any of our own limited reasoning abilities. To rely on our own mind in order to see complexity is limited, we only understand a little of the complexity, but God is infinitely wise, so we can positively reason that God in-fact exists!

[multitasker235]

You don't make sense.

[markermage]

"but without a standard of Truth we wouldn't know what ideas are illogical & deception."

But we do have a standard of truth. It's called "MATHEMATICS". For something to be considered to be a scientific law, it has to be able to be expressed as a mathematical equation along with having tests show it to be true, and that is how science uses it as a standard of truth.

Now, would you like to say that mathematics is illogical or deceptive, or should I continue?

[MMA4Christ]

Mathematics is not THE standard of truth; mathematics is limited, for example mathematics cannot account for paradoxes when used to explain the human mind, sociological paradoxes, and paradoxical theories involving there origin of the universes. Instead, a substitute has to be invented or utilized. What Christians have understood is the substitute is not some alternative model or mathematical theory, it is GOD. GOD is absolutely capable! :)

[markermage]

So you are trying to say that math is not THE standard of truth only because it cannot explain everything? Would I be correct to assume that you don't think math is illogical or deceptive when it comes to the things that it can explain, such as how to find the circumference of a circle?

And on the subject of being limited, does the Bible explain where Cain's wife came from?

I am more interested in the 2 questions of the first paragraph being answered and will take silence as a yes to them.

[MMA4Christ]

Even if math could explain everything it's not the truth; perhaps it would point to the Truth of God's word, then again perhaps it would be deceptive. With the circumference of a circle, math cannot be absolutely exact on the measurement, it can only become more and more exact, correct? I think the circumference of a circle points to the infinite spirit and wisdom of God.

Perhaps Cain's wife was a sister. God allowed close marriage I suppose, maybe sin had not yet corrupted the genetic line.

[markermage]

In 1 Kings 7:23, the measurements of a molten sea that "was round all about" was given. The passage says the the diameter was 10 cubits while the circumference was 30 cubits. After some simple division, it would seem that the passage says hat pi is equal to exactly 3.

Why would it be mathematically inaccurate? Perhaps God had only inspired the Bible (like a sunset may inspire someone to write poetry). Maybe God showed the scribes what happened, and then let them write about it.

[DaveDoggOwns]

The green guy wasn't Sam, it was Gumby.

[MyxineDamion]

nvm, I can't read apparently.

[MyxineDamion]

Is that the music from Silent Hill 4?

[carlyhawthorne88]

yep it certainly is. its called room of angel

[ATL45]

claiming a conspiracy theory is very unconvincing. the ENTIRE archaeological community is covering this up?

this sounds suspiciously like the creationist claim of a worldwide exclusion of their ideas.

it's just a little funny to me how some people will sooner believe that the entire world is out to get them before they'll consider the possibility that they might be wrong.

[powerstone2]

So true. "I'm not crazy. The rest of the world is crazy." lol

[ltinius1988]

As for the circular reasoning of creationism, your logic is internally flawed, What you have been illustrating in your video are examples of supposed IL that we know do not exist, because there is no evidence of such a thing, as a vampire of leprachaun or a zombie.

[konithomimo]

Or a Flying Spaghetti Monster... or a god.

[konithomimo]

And don't start telling me the bible is evidence of a god existing, because I will retort that Interview with a Vampire is evidence of vampires existing.

[powerstone2]

Well,you can't disprove the "nonexistence" of something.Disprove zombies!Honestly,there are people who use the same arguments to prove God to prove the existence of zombies. Next time to find a "proof" for God,sub the word vampire for God,and see how it turns out.

Vampires are living?They metabolize,produce heat,reproduce? How would you know?

IL is the only intelligence shown to exist,thus it's the only one you can logically observe the "characteristics" of,then find more IL elsewhere.

[powerstone2]

So tell me. Is the intelligent agent a living being? Mortal,imperfect,unforgiving? If it is a living being, then by all means, it's no longer circular reasoning. It's an infinite regression, and you'd disprove God creating life.

Again,ID MUST either be IL or NLI (these two choices are mutually exclusive and all-encompassing).Since choosing IL is infinite regression and NLI is circular reasoning, ID is thus inherently illogical.

[MelodiesforJesus]

We christians first are convinced that the bible is true because of evidence. Example: Three quarters of the bible is prophesy, of that three quarters of prophesy three quarters have come true so far. We have no reason to believe the other quarter will not also come true. Also, the instruction within has proven to be good, and does get the desired results. There is much evidence the bible is true so why not believe it? It sure beats the idea we came from animals.

[powerstone2]

1)This has so little to do with this video

2)See my Creation "science" and the scientific method.

3)When your only 2 options are "it has come true" and "it will come true", don't you realize that any "prediction" is thus always correct? If I predicted that zombies will eat the brains of people in South Africa,you'll retort "that hasn't happened." But I'll do as you do:"well, it's going to be happen." Thus my prophecy is true. Zombies are going to eat brains. Prove me wrong.

[ATL45]

there is no archaeological evidence for the exodus of 2-3 million slaves out of egypt. and even after these millions supposedly spent 40 years in the desert, there is not a shred of evidence that such a large population surge ever occurred in canaan.

the entire pentateuch may well be a collection of old fables, along with the still unsubstantiated accounts of a hebrew conquest and the united kingdom of david and solomon.

"The Bible Unearthed"

[ltinius1988]

Actually there is... There has been a recent discovery of a massive amount of egyptian chariots at the bottom of the red sea... That's just one example. The only reason you don't hear about it is because it confirms the truth of the Bible, and anything that does that is always covered up and discarded. Simply because it makes people feel uncomfortable that their beliefs are wrong. I have seen several pictures and some satellite imagery displaying this fact.

[middlekk]

Um. No.

Repeated dives since 1987 have found three supposed chariot wheels -- that does not constitute a "massive amount". There's 1) no confirmation these are real chariot wheels and not just some wagon wheels lost 30 years ago, 2) no confirmation that these date from the correct epoch.

And on and on.

It's really hard to pass on disinformation in the age of Snopes, you know?

[TheBigGameHunter1]

"1) no confirmation these are real chariot wheels and not just some wagon wheels lost 30 years ago, 2) no confirmation that these date from the correct epoch."

Yes amazingly they didnt corrode away or get covered up either!

Also they wear near the edge none in the middle of the river where they should have been.

[middlekk]

Since I wrote that comment, I went to Milan, where the museum there has a REAL chariot wheel from the time. (They also have mummies and fragments from the Book of the Dead -- very cool.)

It looks NOTHING like that photo. Just a few pieces of metal. Very thin. Oxidized black. No "spokes" at all. The "wheel" part is long gone.

That photo is most certainly either fake or modern -- most definitely NOT Egyptian.

[ltinius1988]

And as for the "unsubstatiated" accounts of david and solomon, the ruins of solomons temple have been unearthed in Turkey, The dimensions that were found are substatiated by the recording of the dimesions of the temple in the Bible.

[ltinius1988]

But wait, it was probably just a coincidence that a building in almost the exact same biblical location, had the exact same dimensions as a Biblical building.

[ATL45]

most groundbreaking "discoveries" of Biblical artifacts were made by Ron Wyatt. he claims to have found about a dozen things, from the ark of the covenant to the original ten commandments.

yet in NONE of the cases has he produced hard evidence. if he wants to conclude he's found them, fine. but he shouldn't expect anyone else to believe it without some hard proof.

you know what would be more convincing than some likely blurred satellite photos?

corroboration from actual experts in the field.

[treedon]

poorly constructed.

i am not a theist nor do i advocate ID or creationism. it is just poorly constructed.

[powerstone2]

lol...I'm a student. Give me a break. I'll have you know my laptop just busted. =(

[mconn2112]

Excellent vid.

[Katalyzt]

Nicely done...

Katalyzt

[legoboll]

Oh silent hill music, love it :D

great video! 5/5

[powerstone2]

lol, it's funny. I don't own the games myself. But I'm attracted to the psychological thrill nonetheless. Not to mention kickass music.

[damianpoirier]

Nice! Very nice. So we sould encourage the further research to uncover ID to prove ET. Cool! Of course if ET had been here it would have had excellent nanotech to do so. the conclusion is evidence for ET might be found at the molecular level.

[Hoooyeeeaaah321]

This video is just picking on Christianity.

It doesnt point out some of the key Biological evidence pointing towards intellegent design... Peter Plichta would pwn u

There is MASSIVE amounts of evidence of a designer for the Universe, you just have to look harder for it. but there is no proof in a god that sais nruuhrrhh obey my 10 rules... i love you and watch everything you do... i sent my son down to die for you...

[busymartian]

What evidence? You only ASSUME this video picks on Chritianity. ID says "it's too complex for us to understand how it was made." Real science says "We know how it was made " or"We don't know yet how it was made." Open a fucking book you fucking retard! And tell your mom to quit fucking her brother and squirting out brain dead hicks like you!

[Hoooyeeeaaah321]

Well first of all thats bloody sad that you had to turn your argument into a bunch of blunt as insults...

Secondly, intelligent design is simple... if you saw a pocket watch in the street you would instantly think it was desgined by an intelligent being >C

[Hoooyeeeaaah321]

Now look at Protein Molecules, the building blocks of life, that went with us through evolution.

These are way more complicated than a pocket watch! Then you have a way stronger reason to believe that Protein Molecules which are the essential base to all life were designed by something intelligent.

I.D is totally seperate to religion...

[Hoooyeeeaaah321]

You would beleive the pocket watch was designed because of its complexity*

[busymartian]

First you say that this ID video was an attack on Christianity, then you say that ID is separate from religeon. YOU LIED. I'm telling God on you!

[powerstone2]

No...you'd conclude that the watch was designed by IL and nothing else. I thought I made my point clear. It's the only non-circular argument to make. So,is ID also concluding IL? If it is, then it's an infinite regression fallacy. If it's not, then it's circular reasoning.

[busymartian]

Yes. By a HUMAN!! That was stated 200 years ago by William Paley! It has been dismantled several times since! ID is creationism in a bad suit. This was exposed in the Dover trial with the different drafts of the Pandas and People book. ID has a religeous agenda. Just ask Phil Johnson or read the Wedge Strategy document.

[Gilmaris]

"Secondly, intelligent design is simple... if you saw a pocket watch in the street you would instantly think it was desgined by an intelligent being"

That's because we already know what watches are. We see something which is obviously technology, and as such, we conclude it is MAN made. If it looks complex, but we can't identify it as technology, there is nothing about it which cries "design". The snow flake, for example, looks complex, but we know the natural processes by which it is made.

[powerstone2]

Gilmaris-this is a point I wanted to address. 3452343 and 2395043. One is a telephone number-it carries meaning and information. The other is a "random mass of numbers". But the chances of drawing either out of a lottery are exactly equal. Just because one is "info" to you doesn't means its harder to encounter randomly. A cloud is a pile of molecules. So is a watch. Just because you assign meaning/complexity to the watch, doesn't make it any less likely to encounter "randomly" than that cloud.

[powerstone2]

Both are just clumps of molecules. You can arbitrarily assign "meaning/info" and "complexity" to one, but in the end, the chances of creating both 'randomly' are exactly the same, just like drawing those two numbers from a lottery.

[Gilmaris]

Well, it's not quite that simple. A watch is the result of some very deliberate processes which do not occur naturally - the smelting of iron ore, the forging of the metal, glass making (or in some cases plastic - even more complex, involving the petroleum industry), dye manufacturing etc. etc. For all these to come together they way they have simply cannot occur from natural processes.

[Gilmaris]

However, nothing we have ever encountered, which is not manmade, is complex in the same manner. Creationists like to compare life with technology, but overlook the fact that life reproduces on its own - technology does not. Beside this, biological and technological evolution are actually quite comparable, but this is a crucial difference between them.

[powerstone2]

Argh...i keep putting this as a disclaimer, it keeps getting ignored.

I think you haven't really paid attention. Is your designer IL or NLI? You don't have to tell me, but if it's IL, then your evidence falls under an infinite regression. If it's a NLI, then it's circular reasoning.

....lol...you actually said pwn. makes me cringe

[Brainmold]

I knew that vampires were involved.

[qabala]

Thus, we can determine that there are NLI which design things with COI, however, we have yet to witness NLI that is not designed by IL.

This argument, therefore, implies that God/faeries/vampires were likely to have been designed by IL.

[qabala]

There are some minor flaws, or at least partial flaws, in your argument.

We have, in fact, witnessed NLI design things. This website designed a page based on your input. Many NLI machines design and engineer buildings. I even have a program that designs molecular bodies and reactions.

All of their products display COI.

[mindwis3]

"I even have a program that designs"

That's nice, but that is IL, your intelligence made that, it wouldn't work without that, it's not NLI, your program itself is not intelligent, it is line of code/instructions.

At most it would qualify as AI, but AI is still a myth, it's still long lines of code telling what to do when, not reasoning and deduction yet.

Same goes for this website.

[qabala]

If you read my next post you'll note that I addressed the origin of programs.

A computer program is NOT a living entity, it is a genuine example of NLI regardless of its origin.

The point was that, as far as we know, NLI can only be designed by IL.

[mindwis3]

Fair enough qabala,

I will restrict my statement to:

I've never ever seen anything i would qualify as NLI anywhere ;)

[qabala]

That is a reasonable revision, but there is no need to find an accord on this little bit.

Whether or not you consider computers to be intelligent, the thesis of the argument in the video still stands.

I was only showing that ID is EVEN MORE fallacious than powerstone2 proposes. :)

[powerstone2]

ah, ok that's fine then. For the sake of argument,machines are another intelligent agent that's observable. So, now it's logical to conclude IL and intelligent machine(IM). all other intelligent agents fall under NLI, or non-machine intelligence. Obviously, IM's require a designer too, so you have the same problem of an infinite regression. And still, ID's purpose still isn't to conclude IM either

sry for the late reply.

[dmminnesota]

I don't think that your reasoning makes alot of sense. ID advocates do not try and say a vampire or even God designed things, just that it is crystal clear that someone, entity or being created the Universe.

It is the opponents to ID who try and say that IDers are only creationist. That is not true, nor is it the argument of ID.

[mindwis3]

ID Advocates DO want to propose an "intelligent Designer" created the universe with all in it.

If that does not qualify as a concept of "God" to you, then i wonder what does.

I'd say you have no sense of history when you claim that ID is not 'creation "science"'

-Dover trial anyone?

Btw, it is not at all crystal clear the universe was 'created' how would you know, ever seen another universe created before?

No evidence for your 'crystal clear' design assumtion is there.

[YOURGOD78]

Feel free to look into the backgroud of these ID idiots, and you will find a cross. Now they've got the same idiots in Islam, and if you were at all up to date on the b.s. i.d. feeds you would already know that I.D., and creationism are the same freakin thing. Religions way of imposing stupidity on a generation capable of much more. Now where does I.D. make it clear of a designer?....I'm waiting....Or you could just watch the video you must have skipped over.

[powerstone2]

ah, but I only used vampire/gods as an example. I gave you the choice. The perpetrator of intelligent design MUST be either a living intelligence or a non-living one(tautology). It's up to you what you classify your "entity" as. You actually don't have to classify since I've hopefully shown that neither will make logical sense.

sorry for the late reply.

[ross350tube]

wow

that music nearly had me dozing off.

the timing is perfect in a few points however,

that moment of silence near the start

and when you discussed clouds..

we need something this long to explain a simple feeling we have about ID.

you introduce a few new terms for me anyway.

if i just said to someone "thats circular reasoning" they wouldn't have a clue what i meant, i could lay it out in a paragraph or 2

, now thanks to reading this.

great job