This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Is 'too complex' a viable argument?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
563787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Nitewalkr
Can you be more precise about what is your direction of Intelligent Design?
Are we talking about where Science meets Religion, as in the phrase used to define the argument of existence of God? Made by modern beings who do not wish to believe anything if they dont see that thing's process of creation, unless they have a real damn good reason to do so?
Post by
563787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
563787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
563787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Nitewalkr
lol, deleting your own posts does not help keeping up with the discussion you know?
Who invented what?
It could be an invention of someone who couldnt explain how he invented it. In other words if someone presents an invention and say that he did it but he is unable to answer your question of "How." That case falls in the same Argument.
So my answer is, yes the intelligent designer did it.What is that an answer to? Intelligent designer did what?
/facepalm
I have no idea what on earth you're talking about.
You deleted your own post quoting Gorefiend which I answered to. Reason why you should avoid deleting the proof before blaming someone of being not understandable. Helps you alot in the long run.
so it is assumed to be correct until proven wrong.
But why is ID assumed to be correct? Why not simply inapplicable without evidence? Why is it correct by default?
*Quote so it can not be deleted*
It is assumed to be correct because it had been proven one way or another to the science through out the time.
Post by
563787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
so it is assumed to be correct until proven wrong.
But why is ID assumed to be correct? Why not simply inapplicable without evidence? Why is it correct by default?
It isn't assumed to be correct. It is (for many) believed to be correct. Belief and assumption are two very different things.
How did we arrive at this point in time? Where did we come from? What was here before us? What was here before the universe? What about before that?
The more questions we ask, and answer, the more questions we have to ask. This is an endless discussion with no foreseeable end in sight. The correct answer to all these questions is "I don't know", and quite honestly, neither does anyone else. The possibility that we were created by an omnipotent being that loves us is such an appealing notion, that it is difficult not to encourage the discussion of this idea. The fact that we can't prove a creater exists shouldn't mean that possibility is automatically disproved.
Beyond this, it is really a matter of opinion. In my opinion, children should be taught that the answers aren't known, and encouraged to figure it out for themselves. Odd, I know. With so many people demanding certain things be taught, they don't think that they could be wrong. The people that support the idea of the big bang, ignore the possibility that the universe was created 6 thousand years ago by God. The people that support the teaching of God ignore the fact that they have no proof.
I think it has more to do with the ego of adults, than it does the desire to educate our young. Because, if we truely cared, we would know that education comes in the form of questions, not of answers.
Post by
229791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
563787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
229791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
You do realize that nothing in science is 100% true, right? Science is based on finding the most plausible solution or theory, which is similiar to Intelligent Design. Nothing can disprove it, so it is assumed to be correct until proven wrong.
Right, that's why I think people are stupid when they say faith and science are totally separate things. They, in fact, fall into the same category, the only difference is faith is making scientific claims without evidence or in spite of evidence.
By the way, I've been reading the Bible lately, and while in the sense of story telling its alright (Samson is a beast, killing 1000 men with a donkey's jawbone, and collapsing a temple with his bare hands?), its pretty stupid when it comes to being used as a guiding point for ones life. In my eyes, ignorance ranks much higher as a sin than a lot of what is listed as "bad" in the book, like divorcing one's wife, etc. etc.
Post by
374287
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
563787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
563787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
374287
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pezz
How valid philosophically is the notion of an intelligent designer in the absence of a viable materialistic explanation backed by evidence?
Is a designer a sound default explanation or should the default simply be 'we don't know'?
Depends what you're trying to explain. 'We don't know for certain' is not the same as 'we have no idea at all.' Evolution is a reasonably well developed theory and, while certainly not proven, does go a step further than 'we have no idea.' Hence I think saying 'nope, we're not
sure
scientifically, so I'm going with the 6000 year old earth idea' is wrong.
However, even back in ancient Greece, and especially into the middle ages, philosophers realized that natural philosophy (science) was extremely causal, and that following a casual chain all the way back gets you some weird results. We really don't have a good idea why the universe started (there was nothing. Then it blew up.), and when following a causal chain all the way back gives you either an infinite regress or a being or thing whose essence is its existence, I'll go with the being. I may not decide to attend a denomination-specific religious building weekly, and I may look at that being as a viable starting point for a causal chain which evolution is a part of, rather than a being which snapped its fingers and made everything, but honestly a being of pure simple act is kind of the
least
insane explanation of 'why is there anything instead of nothing' that I've come across. If you want to ascribe specific religious values to that being, I disagree with you, but it's not like I can provide evidence as to why you're wrong, and I can with evolution.
Post by
Queggy
Even religious use antibiotics to cure their infections instead of praying.
There's a verse in the Bible that says God helps those who help themselves. There is also a verse in the Bible where Jesus says, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" By the way, I've been reading the Bible lately, and while in the sense of story telling its alright (Samson is a beast, killing 1000 men with a donkey's jawbone, and collapsing a temple with his bare hands?), its pretty stupid when it comes to being used as a guiding point for ones life. In my eyes, ignorance ranks much higher as a sin than a lot of what is listed as "bad" in the book, like divorcing one's wife, etc. etc.
Are you only in the Old Testament? The New Testament is what is viewed as the "guiding point" for one's life. I'm not saying that the OT isn't important, I'm just saying that the rules and regulations laid down in there are ones that God gave to a nation of people before the coming of the Messiah; they are different from the rules that God gave us to live buy once His Son had come to die for us.
Post by
229791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.