Just curious.
https://www.algemeiner.com/2011/08/17/scientists-prove-again-that-life-is-the-result-of-intelligent-design/
Looks like an "irreducible complexity" argument, which basically goes like this: "I don't know how something this complex could form, therefore goddidit". In other words, an argument from ignorance, which is a fallacy.
Quote from: Murat_Devekusu on December 17, 2016, 03:40:07 AM
Just curious.
https://www.algemeiner.com/2011/08/17/scientists-prove-again-that-life-is-the-result-of-intelligent-design/
Your post is a pretty good argument against intelligent design.
why is that?
Nothing new here, same old shit. You don't know, I don't know, they don't know, therefore lets just stop looking and say god did it. Thankfully science is not as easily swayed as you are.
If there were an intelligent designer, don't you think he could have designed things a little more intelligently? For example, a much better eye, one that didn't tend to be nearsighted or farsighted, one that was at least as good as the average hawk. Sure, science can correct near sightedness with glasses, but why then couldn't the designer get it right?
Quote from: Murat_Devekusu on December 17, 2016, 04:11:40 AM
why is that?
You got 60 years to listen? I am 60 for a few more weeks, and it has taken me that long to sus out all the wisdom and BS in life.
Sorry how other posters simply blow off science skeptics .. they are skeptical of anything, other than their own beliefs of course ;-)) I like new people, people who aren't know-it-alls etc and am happy to add to their education ;-)
The problem is a mystery, "Life, the Universe, Everything". Please read ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes
Having read that, you need to come to "your own" understanding as to why "efficient cause" and "final cause" don't work as well in Natural Philosophy than in Anthropology. Aristotle's analogy, has a human action as its basis, it isn't bias free. Therefore "intelligent design" arguments, which implicitly involve Aristotle's "four causes" ... have an implicit assumption of human causation. We will ignore for the moment if other living things also have "actionable intent". Modern physical science is really just a gloss of Plato, with a little Aristotle added ... that physical reality is the one true reality, a bit like Plato's "world of abstract forms". There is nothing new under the Sun, everything that has been discussed on this, was already done in Ancient Athens.
I don't have a problem with the "intelligent designer"... I have problems with a "god".
Is this 2007? I hate to be a bearer of bad news, but this Intelligent Design (cdesign proponentsist (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cdesign_proponentsists)) stuff died out a looong time ago.
Can someone go find my copypasta argument? I can't do it from my phone. >.>
Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on December 17, 2016, 11:59:47 AM
Can someone go find my copypasta argument? I can't do it from my phone. >.>
Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
This one?
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 14, 2016, 08:16:19 AM
Could I? Yes. Am I? Allow me to sing for you the song of my people.
After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.
I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:
(http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m150/FormicHiveQueen/Q_as_God.jpg)
An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.
It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.
Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.
The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension (http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg85IH3vghA), while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.
Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.
tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.
Quote from: Baruch on December 17, 2016, 09:16:34 AMSorry how other posters simply blow off science skeptics
I say that if you're skeptical of science, you should stop using the fruits of science. Like computers.
Quote from: Atheon on December 17, 2016, 10:06:51 PM
I say that if you're skeptical of science, you should stop using the fruits of science. Like computers.
You are the most credulous person here ;-) ... If you were an Eskimo, I could see ice cubes to you ;-)) But that is OK, bee yourself, just don't sting me.
Quote from: Baruch on December 17, 2016, 10:55:19 PMYou are the most credulous person here ;-)
Kettle calling the orange black.
Quote from: Baruch on December 17, 2016, 10:55:19 PM
You are the most credulous person here ;-) ... If you were an Eskimo, I could see ice cubes to you ;-)) But that is OK, bee yourself, just don't sting me.
Credulous? I'm a skeptic and an atheist. I also don't blindly and unquestioningly believe Republican lies.
This is just in:
Democrats never lie. Honest.
Quote from: pr126 on December 18, 2016, 05:58:31 AM
This is just in:
Democrats never lie. Honest.
D-party cognitive dissonance could be used to power fusion reactors and provide free power for the whole world. The R-party is no different.
I can't remember where this thread got off track.
Quote from: SGOS on December 18, 2016, 08:02:03 AM
I can't remember where this thread got off track.
This thread is proof there is no intelligent design ;-)
This whole article makes a variety of assumptions. The real answer to the origin of the universe is: we don't exactly know how the universe began. Through science, we have access to theories which do not require intelligent design. At the moment, until we can investigate further, this is the best explanation we have for the start of the universe. No one knows exactly what took place for the universe to come into existence. This article seems to suggest that because we don't know, and have a hard time figuring out how the universe started, that it cannot be anything other than intelligent design. Does this mean that even if some of these theories we have today are slightly flawed that the universe was created through intelligent design? No, it only means that we don't know how it began.
I am with Fifa-girl ... people making claims, should be modest, if their experimental evidence, or observational evidence is limited. We know nothing before the 3.5K radiation boundary. And even aside from that, we still don't know much at even a galaxy level, let alone everything that went on in the last 13 billion years. Maybe someday we will know better ... maybe.
No of course, non-scientific claims, like intelligent design, aren't speaking of knowledge (aka science). They are speaking of imagination.
Quote from: Murat_Devekusu on December 17, 2016, 03:40:07 AM
Just curious.
https://www.algemeiner.com/2011/08/17/scientists-prove-again-that-life-is-the-result-of-intelligent-design/
Try this:
http://centreforunintelligentdesign.yolasite.com/
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 20, 2016, 07:31:37 PM
Try this:
http://centreforunintelligentdesign.yolasite.com/
Cool name for the site. I love it.
ID is nothing more than a ploy to explain away science, after science proved that the bible and creation are just ancient ignorance from people that didn't even understand where the sun went at night.
Quote from: Feral Atheist on January 11, 2017, 06:34:17 PM
ID is nothing more than a ploy to explain away science, after science proved that the bible and creation are just ancient ignorance from people that didn't even understand where the sun went at night.
Have you visited Helios beyond the Western horizon? How do you know?
Surely you jest...
:confuse:
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 12, 2017, 05:10:14 PM
Surely you jest...
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/b8/b83eef2b053d5379d8dc1681fc9584d9d202b970883d2dfd259deac15f56d225.jpg)
Had to
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 12, 2017, 05:10:14 PM
Surely you jest...
:confuse:
Everything is narrative ... it is all truthiness. So do you control your narrative, or does the CIA, or someone else (called authority). Existence is a made up story. But no, I am not an ancient Greco-Roman, but I did sleep overnight in the Forum ;-)
Quote from: Poison Tree on January 12, 2017, 11:16:36 PM
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/b8/b83eef2b053d5379d8dc1681fc9584d9d202b970883d2dfd259deac15f56d225.jpg)
Had to
Yeah, 'twas expected...was that from the movie Airplane?
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/2b/74/8e/2b748ecf16ccc0fbdef70714607faba1.jpg)
Quote from: Baruch on December 17, 2016, 09:16:34 AM
You got 60 years to listen? I am 60 for a few more weeks, and it has taken me that long to sus out all the wisdom and BS in life.
You've figured it all out in only almost 60 years? Congratulations! So why haven't you actually demonstrated this understanding so far? You must be hiding it for a Big Day.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 19, 2017, 04:57:52 AM
You've figured it all out in only almost 60 years? Congratulations! So why haven't you actually demonstrated this understanding so far? You must be hiding it for a Big Day.
In the Stone Age, people worshipped cave bears ... no so much anymore. What are you waiting for, the next Ice Age?
Our drive by religious are dodos ... and I am Sid ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RhqR2ZGkc0
Quote from: Baruch on February 19, 2017, 06:40:45 AM
In the Stone Age, people worshipped cave bears ... no so much anymore. What are you waiting for, the next Ice Age?
Our drive by religious are dodos ... and I am Sid ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RhqR2ZGkc0
That makes no sense.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 19, 2017, 06:48:00 AM
That makes no sense.
Quoth the dodo, nevermore ...
Have you observed our drive by amateur evangelicals at all?
Poor christians. They fail time and time again to realize that this is the same argument we've already heard. Do your home work on popular arguments before repeating the same dried up crap.
Quote from: doorknob on February 20, 2017, 01:11:51 AM
Poor christians. They fail time and time again to realize that this is the same argument we've already heard. Do your home work on popular arguments before repeating the same dried up crap.
I actually sometimes wish for an argument from theists I haven't heard before. It would be a relief. Something new would brighten up my day.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 20, 2017, 01:15:32 AM
I actually sometimes wish for an argument from theists I haven't heard before. It would be a relief. Something new would brighten up my day.
Hard to say something new about millennia old religions ;-)
One person says, "I don't understand how this works, therefore god did it."
Another person, "God must have done this, because it's too complicated to understand."
Those are two identical arguments, but each guy thinks he's having an original insight, and then rushes to the nearest atheist forum to totally flabbergast everyone with what has to be overwhelming evidence of the unknown.
But there isn't any evidence for the unknown, because, well..., it's unknown.
there can be evidence for the unknown, if I know something that you don't. a little game of insider trading.
Drive by religion can't be dodos. The dodos are all gone. Drive by religions are still here.... Maybe they are so stupid we can beat them to death, but ya haven't beaten them yet
Quote from: fencerider on March 01, 2017, 12:32:26 AM
there can be evidence for the unknown, if I know something that you don't. a little game of insider trading.
Drive by religion can't be dodos. The dodos are all gone. Drive by religions are still here.... Maybe they are so stupid we can beat them to death, but ya haven't beaten them yet
There can always be new information to cause science to change. It is revisionist by nature. As opposed to changing theistic beliefs which really do have to be bludgeoned before they disappear.
I actually delight in the idea that theists will gather around one theistic deity someday. Assuming they don't decide/manage to kill us all to prove the power of their deity first, then when THAT one is finally set aside we might actually be free of the whole horrible concept.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 20, 2017, 01:15:32 AM
I actually sometimes wish for an argument from theists I haven't heard before. It would be a relief. Something new would brighten up my day.
Maybe today is that day...ever hear of the Infinite Absolute One that in an expression of self existence procreated infinite finite one's aka universes/souls?
It might not brighten your day but I can gaurentee you've never heard it before ;)
More fundamental than "intelligent" design. It's a purely geometric procreative design. No special pleading required. The natural order/laws of the universe are unfolded/individualized out of a privioisly unified state....which still exists above and below a metaversal stack of equal sized universes.
A universe is viewed as a cavitated/quantized state (finite) within the infinite unified state....like a bubble in an ocean with no top or bottom. That ocean would be the body of God. The quantum fluctuation (cavitation) that begin "creation" would be an expression of self existence or a shock of self recognition..."I am endless, my name is Forever. I am all around, at the center everywhere and equal throughout."
The concept of God this navigation employs is that of an infinite absolute substance taking up all space forever in all directions. An infinite singularity. An infinite One. Pure being, no voided space. A universe is mostly voided space that patterns for an interesting quantum building block we call the atom....which has a peripheral border condition a central point nucleus....and a probability field of electron appearance between.
This navigation treats God as an absolute infinite object rather than an anthropomorphized subjective persona.
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 14, 2017, 05:44:20 PM
More fundamental than "intelligent" design. It's a purely geometric procreative design. No special pleading required. The natural order/laws of the universe are unfolded/individualized out of a privioisly unified state....which still exists above and below a metaversal stack of equal sized universes.
A universe is viewed as a cavitated/quantized state (finite) within the infinite unified state....like a bubble in an ocean with no top or bottom. That ocean would be the body of God. The quantum fluctuation (cavitation) that begin "creation" would be an expression of self existence or a shock of self recognition..."I am endless, my name is Forever. I am all around, at the center everywhere and equal throughout."
The concept of God this navigation employs is that of an infinite absolute substance taking up all space forever in all directions. An infinite singularity. An infinite One. Pure being, no voided space. A universe is mostly voided space that patterns for an interesting quantum building block we call the atom....which has a peripheral border condition a central point nucleus....and a probability field of electron appearance between.
This navigation treats God as an absolute infinite object rather than an anthropomorphized subjective persona.
What a wonderful way to explain a god that says you should be put to death for having sex before marriage....cause.....that'll never happen....but good ole god is.. after all... the omniscient...so....he wouldn't really know what is going to happen in the future cause he isn't omnisie....oh wait...well........that sucks.
Quote from: aitm on April 14, 2017, 07:56:43 PM
What a wonderful way to explain a god that says you should be put to death for having sex before marriage....cause.....that'll never happen....but good ole god is.. after all... the omniscient...so....he wouldn't really know what is going to happen in the future cause he isn't omnisie....oh wait...well........that sucks.
lmao! You cheeky atheist, you're trying to get me to defend a highly abridged collection of books aren't you....;)
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 14, 2017, 08:46:13 PM
lmao! You cheeky atheist, you're trying to get me to defend a highly abridged collection of books aren't you....;)
Well do us all a favor and define this mighty wizard of a minuscule planet amongst a impossible legion of space that only a god could not begin to comprehend to have created.
Quote from: aitm on April 14, 2017, 09:56:26 PM
Well do us all a favor and define this mighty wizard of a minuscule planet amongst a impossible legion of space that only a god could not begin to comprehend to have created.
Try more sense make, bad input.
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 14, 2017, 05:44:20 PM
Maybe today is that day...ever hear of the Infinite Absolute One that in an expression of self existence procreated infinite finite one's aka universes/souls?
It might not brighten your day but I can gaurentee you've never heard it before ;)
More fundamental than "intelligent" design. It's a purely geometric procreative design. No special pleading required. The natural order/laws of the universe are unfolded/individualized out of a privioisly unified state....which still exists above and below a metaversal stack of equal sized universes.
A universe is viewed as a cavitated/quantized state (finite) within the infinite unified state....like a bubble in an ocean with no top or bottom. That ocean would be the body of God. The quantum fluctuation (cavitation) that begin "creation" would be an expression of self existence or a shock of self recognition..."I am endless, my name is Forever. I am all around, at the center everywhere and equal throughout."
The concept of God this navigation employs is that of an infinite absolute substance taking up all space forever in all directions. An infinite singularity. An infinite One. Pure being, no voided space. A universe is mostly voided space that patterns for an interesting quantum building block we call the atom....which has a peripheral border condition a central point nucleus....and a probability field of electron appearance between.
This navigation treats God as an absolute infinite object rather than an anthropomorphized subjective persona.
So ... Dirac's sea of electrons ... which implies that atheists are made of anti-matter? ;-)
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 14, 2017, 10:01:02 PM
Try more sense make, bad input.
Compared to your parabelch up 4? Ha.
Quote from: aitm on April 15, 2017, 09:18:47 AM
Compared to your parabelch up 4? Ha.
What it boils down to is that no new material needs to be created. What is created is organize space within pre-existing material. This is more reasonable than something from nothing.
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 15, 2017, 08:33:09 PM
What it boils down to is that no new material needs to be created. What is created is organize space within pre-existing material. This is more reasonable than something from nothing.
The initial singularity so called, is simply a boundary to spacetime, and a unique one, always in the past relative to us. But the idea of a boundary to the universe, was disputed millennia ago by an ancient Greek who said .. whatever boundary the Cosmos may have, if I come to the edge, I can always put my hand beyond it. But this doesn't work with a boundary in the past. John Philoponus, Saadia Gaon, Al-Kindi and Al-Ghazali all imagined a finite universe, and finite in time.
Personally I think that if we could reach back in time, the origin would simply slip farther back into time, as we approach it. But that only happens in old Dr Who episodes.
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 14, 2017, 05:44:20 PM
Maybe today is that day...ever hear of the Infinite Absolute One that in an expression of self existence procreated infinite finite one's aka universes/souls?
It might not brighten your day but I can gaurentee you've never heard it before ;)
More fundamental than "intelligent" design. It's a purely geometric procreative design. No special pleading required. The natural order/laws of the universe are unfolded/individualized out of a privioisly unified state....which still exists above and below a metaversal stack of equal sized universes.
A universe is viewed as a cavitated/quantized state (finite) within the infinite unified state....like a bubble in an ocean with no top or bottom. That ocean would be the body of God. The quantum fluctuation (cavitation) that begin "creation" would be an expression of self existence or a shock of self recognition..."I am endless, my name is Forever. I am all around, at the center everywhere and equal throughout."
The concept of God this navigation employs is that of an infinite absolute substance taking up all space forever in all directions. An infinite singularity. An infinite One. Pure being, no voided space. A universe is mostly voided space that patterns for an interesting quantum building block we call the atom....which has a peripheral border condition a central point nucleus....and a probability field of electron appearance between.
This navigation treats God as an absolute infinite object rather than an anthropomorphized subjective persona.
Congratulations! I thought I had heard heard all the idiotic religious arguments possible. You added a new one.
"The concept of God this navigation employs" ? Surely you jest...
so god is like a big fat white blood cell and earth is just a virus in it his belly?
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 15, 2017, 08:33:09 PM
What it boils down to is that no new material needs to be created. What is created is organize space within pre-existing material. This is more reasonable than something from nothing.
Strangely, no serious scientist says we came from "nothing". What they say is we don't know what we came from.
Quote from: fencerider on April 20, 2017, 02:56:04 AM
so god is like a big fat white blood cell and earth is just a virus in it his belly?
The Earth is hard to digest, but G-d is working on it. Divine indigestion is the shits!
Quote from: Cavebear on April 17, 2017, 03:27:33 AM
Congratulations! I thought I had heard heard all the idiotic religious arguments possible. You added a new one.
"The concept of God this navigation employs" ? Surely you jest...
"The idea of God I'm working with" ....whatever's clever Cavebear.
Just letting you know it's not a new idea and it was ubiquitous throughout the ancient world. Not that I need to appeal to "authority" or history.
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 20, 2017, 01:51:47 PM
"The idea of God I'm working with" ....whatever's clever Cavebear.
Just letting you know it's not a new idea and it was ubiquitous throughout the ancient world. Not that I need to appeal to "authority" or history.
So, humor us about "navigation".
You know..I have no idea how the New England Patriots won the super bowl, but I'm thoroughly convinced god had no hand in it. I also have no clue why the Cincinnati Reds are in first place for the same non-reasons..
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on April 21, 2017, 05:33:09 AM
You know..I have no idea how the New England Patriots won the super bowl, but I'm thoroughly convinced god had no hand in it. I also have no clue why the Cincinnati Reds are in first place for the same non-reasons..
I'm sure I've seen worse arguments, but I can't quote them. ;)
There's always the theory of the infinite big and the infinite small that we're just a tiny part of a much much larger molecular structure and we're just a tiny molecule on a GIGANTIC shit pile which in turn is also another molecule on an even bigger shit pile and on and on and in reverse that within atoms and molecules we can detect are also smaller universes we can never detect..
How can this be? Goddidit of course..
I get to go out and play god in the back yard all the time with the ants out there creating floods, earthquakes, pestilence from the sky, destroy them with fire and on and on. I might even be out there creating new ants, but that's a highly guarded secret I cannot divulge or I'd have to kill you all.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on April 21, 2017, 05:45:07 AM
There's always the theory of the infinite big and the infinite small that we're just a tiny part of a much much larger molecular structure and we're just a tiny molecule on a GIGANTIC shit pile which in turn is also another molecule on an even bigger shit pile and on and on and in reverse that within atoms and molecules we can detect are also smaller universes we can never detect..
How can this be? Goddidit of course..
I get to go out and play god in the back yard all the time with the ants out there creating floods, earthquakes, pestilence from the sky, destroy them with fire and on and on. I might even be out there creating new ants, but that's a highly guarded secret I cannot divulge or I'd have to kill you all.
Please do make sure that the ants stay small and don't develop stingers or whatnot. Guide them, as a deity, to kindness.
No..most are those mean little fuckers that bite like hell.. This is South Carolina..we don't got no nice ants, just fire ants and fire ant wannabes.. Want to kill fire ants? Dump coffee grounds on their nests then sprinkle water on it.. it won't kill all ant species, but it will kill fire ants.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on April 21, 2017, 06:14:18 AM
No..most are those mean little fuckers that bite like hell.. This is South Carolina..we don't got no nice ants, just fire ants and fire ant wannabes.. Want to kill fire ants? Dump coffee grounds on their nests then sprinkle water on it.. it won't kill all ant species, but it will kill fire ants.
So the ants get caffeinated, stay up without sleeping, go nuts ... kill each other?
The intelligent design (and also the religious) mindset is the following: Science must know and be able to explain everything or else God is necessarily the best explanation.
Parasites come in more than one form, and parasites of the mind such as ID and religious-based thinking are the worst of them all.
Creator dieties/god/s have been claimed forever, even before the big three monotheisms. So they are still stuck with which "designer"? And what design? Cockroaches and bacteria outnumber humans and have existed far longer.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on April 21, 2017, 06:14:18 AM
No..most are those mean little fuckers that bite like hell.. This is South Carolina..we don't got no nice ants, just fire ants and fire ant wannabes.. Want to kill fire ants? Dump coffee grounds on their nests then sprinkle water on it.. it won't kill all ant species, but it will kill fire ants.
I was raised in the South, so I remember well those damned things! I don't remember S. Carolina, though, even though I was born there. I never made it back - the fire ants kept me away...
(http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/33000/Fire-Ant--33165.jpg)
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/animals-arson-arsonists-fire_fighters-firemen-ants-awhn118_low.jpg)