P
pig
Guest
It was genetics and natural selection what done it, honest Guv…!Thank heaven for that! I wasn’t sure whether you intended to confuse us or were compelled by natural causes…
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
“How do we detect Design?” is a fashionable question which requires an unfashionable answer - at least for non-Designers! Of course there is no answer if no form of design exists but if nothing is designed the question doesn’t even make sense. All events - including the question - would be natural events caused by purposeless processes.
Design is simply rational activity. To deny it is to brand oneself as irrational - as intellectually insignificant as a lunatic. Rational activity is a valid and essential condition of the search for the truth about reality. But how do we detect it? With our five senses? Can we see, hear, smell, taste or touch it? Obviously not. It takes us into a non-physical world, the world of abstract ideas, principles, goals and conclusions, all of which are intangible and yet far more valuable and significant than material objects.
The existence of material objects alone apparently tells us nothing about Design and rational activity. If life didn’t exist would there be evidence to suggest the universe is purposeful? Curiously enough there is. Order, cohesion, predictability and mathematical precision are in stark contrast to chaos. The universe is not only a prodigious scientific achievement but also an artistic masterpiece. Only an ignorant and insensitive person fails to appreciate the systematic simplicity and elegance of the laws of nature.
Could they exist by chance alone? Non-Designers believe they do - as the result of physical necessity. They imply the universe must be as it is and couldn’t be different - which is sheer nonsense. How can it possibly be demonstrated that things **must **be as they are? That this is the only possible universe? That events couldn’t have occurred in any other way? The sole basis for such a dogmatic assumption is blind faith in immutable reality - for which there is not one jot of evidence - and which amounts to self-contradictory and self-destructive fatalism.
This is only the first step in establishing that there is conclusive evidence for Design…
Design is simply rational activity. To deny it is to brand oneself as irrational - as intellectually insignificant as a lunatic. Rational activity is a valid and essential condition of the search for the truth about reality. But how do we detect it? With our five senses? Can we see, hear, smell, taste or touch it? Obviously not. It takes us into a non-physical world, the world of abstract ideas, principles, goals and conclusions, all of which are intangible and yet far more valuable and significant than material objects.
The existence of material objects alone apparently tells us nothing about Design and rational activity. If life didn’t exist would there be evidence to suggest the universe is purposeful? Curiously enough there is. Order, cohesion, predictability and mathematical precision are in stark contrast to chaos. The universe is not only a prodigious scientific achievement but also an artistic masterpiece. Only an ignorant and insensitive person fails to appreciate the systematic simplicity and elegance of the laws of nature.
Could they exist by chance alone? Non-Designers believe they do - as the result of physical necessity. They imply the universe must be as it is and couldn’t be different - which is sheer nonsense. How can it possibly be demonstrated that things **must **be as they are? That this is the only possible universe? That events couldn’t have occurred in any other way? The sole basis for such a dogmatic assumption is blind faith in immutable reality - for which there is not one jot of evidence - and which amounts to self-contradictory and self-destructive fatalism.
This is only the first step in establishing that there is conclusive evidence for Design…
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
You, Pig, are brilliant! Not that pigs in general are (they are supposed to be very intelligent), but you, Pig (formerly known as You) are! I have nothing against pigs, Pig, but your brilliance definitely raises the bar for the rest of the clan.
Oh, geez! I missed the fact that there is no upper case P in your name. My apologies!
I amend my post to:
You, pig, are brilliant! Not that pigs in general are (they are supposed to be very intelligent), but you, pig (formerly known as You) are! I have nothing against pigs, pig, but your brilliance definitely raises the bar for the rest of the clan.
P
pig
Guest
I didn’t like to point out the capital “P” to you before, it was only a small matter, its much better now!
As the man said; I’ll drink to that!
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Yes, there are some minds so dense you couldn’t open them up with a 75 lb jack hammer. It just boggles the mind. It would be much more sane to say, " …so there is a God, a Creator, cause of every thing, maintainer of everything, etc. and so what, who cares, I’m going to do what I want and to H-- with it…"“How do we detect Design?” is a fashionable question which requires an unfashionable answer - at least for non-Designers! Of course there is no answer if no form of design exists but if nothing is designed the question doesn’t even make sense. All events - including the question - would be natural events caused by purposeless processes.
Design is simply rational activity. To deny it is to brand oneself as irrational - as intellectually insignificant as a lunatic. Rational activity is a valid and essential condition of the search for the truth about reality. But how do we detect it? With our five senses? Can we see, hear, smell, taste or touch it? Obviously not. It takes us into a non-physical world, the world of abstract ideas, principles, goals and conclusions, all of which are intangible and yet far more valuable and significant than material objects.
The existence of material objects alone apparently tells us nothing about Design and rational activity. If life didn’t exist would there be evidence to suggest the universe is purposeful? Curiously enough there is. Order, cohesion, predictability and mathematical precision are in stark contrast to chaos. The universe is not only a prodigious scientific achievement but also an artistic masterpiece. Only an ignorant and insensitive person fails to appreciate the systematic simplicity and elegance of the laws of nature.
Could they exist by chance alone? Non-Designers believe they do - as the result of physical necessity. They imply the universe must be as it is and couldn’t be different - which is sheer nonsense. How can it possibly be demonstrated that things **must **be as they are? That this is the only possible universe? That events couldn’t have occurred in any other way? The sole basis for such a dogmatic assumption is blind faith in immutable reality - for which there is not one jot of evidence - and which amounts to self-contradictory and self-destructive fatalism.
This is only the first step in establishing that there is conclusive evidence for Design…
T
tonyrey
Guest
But the choice of non-Design gives them a free licence to be licentious without any moral scruples!If we invent morality we can ensure it is not inconvenient…
T
tonyrey
Guest
- Everything is logically possible but some things are existentially impossible. It is theoretically possible nothing exists but if nothing existed neither would knowledge! **Some one must exist **even if nothing else exists.
- It is logically possible everything is disorderly but then it would be impossible to understand anything. The power of understanding cannot be based on what is disorderly. Nor can disorderly things be understood. Therefore there must be some orderliness.
- It is logically possible everything is unpredictable but if everything were unpredictable it would be impossible to predict anything. The success of science proves many events are predictable. They are predictable because the universe is orderly and also because we can understand what is orderly.
- There is affinity between understanding and predictability. Neither is necessary or inevitable. They are not accidents but attributes of personal and impersonal reality. Both persons and things are rational - in the sense that they have a rational origin. But persons are rational whereas things are intelligible. This is further conclusive evidence for Design…
P
PRmerger
Guest
Beer at a BBQ is an okay image.
I prefer to imagine that we are on a patio. Hence, the icon of a patio on my Profile.
There certainly is much room for disagreement and dialogue here on the CAFs. Things can get quite contentious when discussing religion and personal points of view, but I like to think of myself sitting on someone’s patio, drinking a cocktail and eating something deliciously unhealthy, discussing religion.
That image keeps things fun, respectful and charitable.
T
tonyrey
Guest
There is conclusive evidence that the universe is a rational, intelligible system but it is so vast and immensely complex there are inevitably many irrational and incomprehensible events and situations. These are caused by coincidences like earthquakes which destroy cities and lives. They are absurd because there is no** reason **why they occur.
Natural disasters throw into sharp relief the difference between Design and Chance. Catastrophes lead to **negative **consequences which are unplanned - unlike **positive **developments which are the results of harmony. Otherwise life wouldn’t have emerged…
The test of Design is success! By any standards the history of this planet has been dynamic, creative and progressive. Pollution was not inevitable nor was the extinction of so many species due to human interference. The biosphere is a combination of many factors that have produced the unity, richness and beauty of nature - which far exceed its defects, anomalies and deformities. Leibniz pointed out there are far more houses than hospitals!
Pragmatism is based on the principle that if an idea works it is likely to be true. In other words errors are sterile and destructive. The same reasoning can be applied to natural events. If they cause needless misery and untimely death they are aberrations. If they are a source of fulfilment they are due to normal development - which is not an exclusively material phenomenon because physical and chemical processes do not lead in any particular direction. Their complexity is barren and aimless. They have no goal or purpose whereas living organisms exist **not only to survive **but in order to develop and enjoy all the benefits and luxuries of being alive - the greatest gift of all which is so often and so easily taken for granted as inevitable instead of appreciated as an unsurpassed miracle…
Natural disasters throw into sharp relief the difference between Design and Chance. Catastrophes lead to **negative **consequences which are unplanned - unlike **positive **developments which are the results of harmony. Otherwise life wouldn’t have emerged…
The test of Design is success! By any standards the history of this planet has been dynamic, creative and progressive. Pollution was not inevitable nor was the extinction of so many species due to human interference. The biosphere is a combination of many factors that have produced the unity, richness and beauty of nature - which far exceed its defects, anomalies and deformities. Leibniz pointed out there are far more houses than hospitals!
Pragmatism is based on the principle that if an idea works it is likely to be true. In other words errors are sterile and destructive. The same reasoning can be applied to natural events. If they cause needless misery and untimely death they are aberrations. If they are a source of fulfilment they are due to normal development - which is not an exclusively material phenomenon because physical and chemical processes do not lead in any particular direction. Their complexity is barren and aimless. They have no goal or purpose whereas living organisms exist **not only to survive **but in order to develop and enjoy all the benefits and luxuries of being alive - the greatest gift of all which is so often and so easily taken for granted as inevitable instead of appreciated as an unsurpassed miracle…
B
buffalo
Guest
Another new development - climbing DNA.
Laser Spotlight Reveals Machine ‘Climbing’ DNA
…
Up until now conventional techniques of biological physics or biochemistry have not been sufficiently fast or precise to monitor such tiny machines inside living cells at the level of single molecules.
‘Each machine functions in much the same way as rock-climber clinging to a cliff face,’ says Mark Leake of Oxford University’s Department of Physics, 'it has one end anchored to a portion of cellular DNA while the other end opens and closes randomly by using chemical energy stored in a ubiquitous bio-molecule called adenosine triphosphate, or ‘ATP’: the universal molecular fuel for all living cells.
‘This opening and closing action of the machine is essentially a process of mechanical ‘grabbing’, in which it attempts to seize more free DNA, like the rock-climber searching for a new handhold.’
Laser Spotlight Reveals Machine ‘Climbing’ DNA
…
Up until now conventional techniques of biological physics or biochemistry have not been sufficiently fast or precise to monitor such tiny machines inside living cells at the level of single molecules.
‘Each machine functions in much the same way as rock-climber clinging to a cliff face,’ says Mark Leake of Oxford University’s Department of Physics, 'it has one end anchored to a portion of cellular DNA while the other end opens and closes randomly by using chemical energy stored in a ubiquitous bio-molecule called adenosine triphosphate, or ‘ATP’: the universal molecular fuel for all living cells.
‘This opening and closing action of the machine is essentially a process of mechanical ‘grabbing’, in which it attempts to seize more free DNA, like the rock-climber searching for a new handhold.’
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
Even though our friend ManRay has been banned, just in case he’s still lurking, I would like to reply to this post:
Craig has faced (and fried) much bigger fish than Loftus. Loftus’ claim that Craig is scared of him is ludicrous. Much more likely is the explanation of Craig finding it inappropriate to debate his own students. And I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if his claim of Craig’s 1985 remark is completely fabricated. Loftus has a documented history of lying (J.P. Holding exposed him for fabricating a blog about him and passing it off as an independent source. He then, astonishingly, admitted to doing it while denying he had done anything dishonest.)
Anyone who works as a professor of philosophy, having earned a doctorate in the field, is a professional philosopher. It is not a title Craig uses for himself. Do you also find it creepy for someone to be called a “professional dancer” or a “professional plumber?” Once again, proving that what you lack in argumentative substance you more than make up for in ridiculous and ostensibly insulting remarks.
But no matter; best of luck to you in life, ManRay. This was fun while it lasted.
Ok, but unfortunately John Loftus hardly ranks as a leading atheist philosopher.
Talk about giving himself way too much credit. Have you ever listened to the guy debate? His arguments are weak and run of the mill. Much lesser apologists than Craig, like Dinesh D’Souza, had no trouble holding their ground against him, and, in fact, dismantling most of his arguments, pointing out fallacy after fallacy. One of his favorite arguments is the “If you were born in x, you’d be y.” (That good ol’ genetic fallacy.)
Craig has faced (and fried) much bigger fish than Loftus. Loftus’ claim that Craig is scared of him is ludicrous. Much more likely is the explanation of Craig finding it inappropriate to debate his own students. And I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if his claim of Craig’s 1985 remark is completely fabricated. Loftus has a documented history of lying (J.P. Holding exposed him for fabricating a blog about him and passing it off as an independent source. He then, astonishingly, admitted to doing it while denying he had done anything dishonest.)
Really? Did you just completely ignore the list I posted of atheist intellectuals praising him?
“I’m very happy to be debating Dr. Craig; the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists. I’ve actually gotten more than a few emails this week that more or less read, ‘Brother, please don’t blow this!’” - Sam Harris
Anyone who works as a professor of philosophy, having earned a doctorate in the field, is a professional philosopher. It is not a title Craig uses for himself. Do you also find it creepy for someone to be called a “professional dancer” or a “professional plumber?” Once again, proving that what you lack in argumentative substance you more than make up for in ridiculous and ostensibly insulting remarks.
But no matter; best of luck to you in life, ManRay. This was fun while it lasted.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
A three-step argument for the validity of the question of design:
- The universe operates according to an intricate rational structure.
- Within the universe, we see that the only things that are capable of independently producing new rational structures are minds.
- Therefore, we have reason to, at least, suspect that the rational structure of the universe is the product of a mind.
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
I don’t think what you’ve presented would be an example of a genetic fallacy. As I understand it, a genetic fallacy might take the form of: Person X is right (or wrong) because person X was born in location Y. What Loftus claims is that if someone is born in Saudi Arabia, then that person would likely be a Muslim or if someone was born in India, then that person would likely be a Hindu. Such an observation would seem to be trivially true. Loftus uses this observation as part of his Outsiders Test for Faith – which invites believers to subject their religious beliefs to the same standards of evidence that they use to evaluate other people’s religious beliefs. You can read about the OTF here as well as engage him in discussion.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
That was poorly worded on my part. Apologies. The particular statement “If you were born in X, you’d probably be Y,” is not itself a genetic fallacy; you’re right. But Loftus commits a genetic fallacy when he uses that fact as an argument against the validity of Christianity (i.e. the “genesis” of an idea cannot be used to prove it false.)
So it would really look more like this: “If A was born in B instead of C, he’d be Y rather than Z. Therefore, Z is probably false.”
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
What is made of the fact that the universe – at its initial quantum scale stage – was anything but rational or predictable?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Even more interesting: How did it get to be rational and predicable from “anything but rational or predictable?”
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
That something imposed order upon it. In fact, Torah scholars have long (and long before the rise of modern science) interpreted the language of Genesis to imply exactly this transition from chaos to order. The original Hebrew contained layers of meaning that are lost to the modern reader. The phrase “there was evening and there was morning, the Nth day,” for example, implied a transition to a higher level of order in the cosmos rather than a literal sunset and sunrise.
Take this quote from Nahmanides’ commentary on the Torah, drawn strictly from the text of Genesis :
*
"…At the briefest instant following creation, all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was very thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this ethereally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed."*
Sound familiar?
Having read that, ponder the fact that this was written sometime in the 13th century.
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
So God created the universe bathed in chaos and then had to immediately begin tweaking it to be rational and predictable? That seems inefficient for a maximal designer.
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
Loftus addressed the accusation of genetic fallacy some time ago and I’ll try to find his response, but I still think your representation of his argument isn’t accurate. IIRC, his paraphrased argument was: If Junebug was born in India instead of Arkansas, he’d likely be a Hindu rather than a Christian. Because Junebug’s choice ***** of religion seems to be primarily the result of circumstances, he has no more reason to think that Christianity is any more true than a Hindu born in India has for sincerely believing her religion is also true. In other words, both people sincerely believe their respective religions are true despite the fact that their choice of religions was purely an accident of their birthplaces. It’s more of a simple observation that people select ***** their religions based on cultural factors rather than on rational, dispassionate, exhaustive reflection and study.
***** For many people, it’s probably not even accurate to use the words “choice” or “select”, since they begin to be raised in their parent’s religion almost from birth without any exposure to other faith traditions.
- Status