Conclusive evidence for Design!

[Peter_Plato]

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.

I think time did not exist “before” he began tweaking it, so “immediately” would not be preceded by “then.” However, I was not an eye witness, so you should speak to God about your question.

 

[prodigalson2011]

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.

I might concede that it’s a simple observation if he didn’t push it forth in debates. If you’re trying to disprove something, you can’t appeal to observations, however true they may be in themselves, to argue the truth of an unrelated claim.

Also, as D’Souza said in their debate, this concept applies just as much in the field of science as religion: “If you’re born in Oxford, Englad you’re more likely to believe the theory of evolution than if you’re born in Oxford, Mississippi. If you’re born in New Guinea, you’re less likely to believe in Einstein’s theory of relativity than if you’re born in New York City. What does that say about the truth of Einstein’s theory of relativity? Absolutely nothing.” It simply has no more place in an argument about the truth of Christianity than a debate about those things. Even trotting it out serves as nothing but a diversion.

I have to concur with J.P. Holding: “Loftus denies committing a genetic fallacy, for he says that he uses the Outsider Test only to promote more critical consideration. However, his frequent use of the Outsider Test as a bludgeon indicates that he is trying to do much more than that, and indeed uses it as a shortcut for disproving Christianity.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

If Loftus attempted to use this as an argument against the truth of Christianity, it would definitely be an example of the genetic fallacy. So what does he attempt to imply?

Does the same argument apply to the origin of atheistic beliefs? Or are atheistic beliefs somehow immune from his “origins” theory because they are not beliefs?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Evolution is a banned topic, and hiding this in the philosophy forum is dishonest and everyone participating in it ought to be asking for a full open discussion on the topic.
But, that would not work here because then, you would not have a leg to stand on.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Evolution is a banned topic, and hiding this in the philosophy forum is dishonest and everyone participating in it ought to be asking for a full open discussion on the topic.
But, that would not work here because then, you would not have a leg to stand on.

Design is not evolution.

In fact, neo-Darwinian evolution denies the need for design. So “design” need not have anything to do with evolution.

Where is evolution hiding here? We need to smoke it out!

Bad, bad evolution!

 

[StrawberryJam]

Design is not evolution.

In fact, neo-Darwinian evolution denies the need for design. So “design” need not have anything to do with evolution.

Where is evolution hiding here? We need to smoke it out!

Bad, bad evolution!

Design is anti evolution. Evolution is a banned topic.

This is about the most dishonest thing going on here I have ever seen.

IF the topic of Evolution is banned than this topic ought to be as well, as it does not allow for any views that will crush disable and put to bed this topic.

I would be satisfyed if the topic of Evolution was no longer banned, then you can keep blathering on.

Or keep a one way street conversation and forget the idea of apologetics entirely and call it what it really is. Indoctrination. No allowance for any view that disagrees.

 

[StrawberryJam]

If Loftus attempted to use this as an argument against the truth of Christianity, it would definitely be an example of the genetic fallacy. So what does he attempt to imply?

Does the same argument apply to the origin of atheistic beliefs? Or are atheistic beliefs somehow immune from his “origins” theory because they are not beliefs?

One does not have to believe in a deity to have beliefs, or are you so ingrained in thinking they must that you can not wrap your head around anything else?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Design is anti evolution. Evolution is a banned topic.

Your impressions do not make it so.

That’s like saying being a dog-lover is being anti-cat.

Some evolutionists may make evolution out to be anti-design, but design is not anti-evolution. God’s design could include evolution.

Design and some forms of evolution are compatible.

We’ll leave it to the moderators to decide and hopefully not based upon your false notions and misguided posts.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Your impressions do not make it so.

That’s like saying being a dog-lover is being anti-cat.

Some evolutionists may make evolution out to be anti-design, but design is not anti-evolution. God’s design could include evolution.

Design and some forms of evolution are compatible.

We’ll leave it to the moderators to decide and hopefully not based upon your false notions and misguided posts.

If you think design is not an argument against evolution, you do not understand evolution. This site has banned it from discussion so that your ID people can take over the discussion. You can win everytime when you bann anyone who does not agree.

I hate the dishonesty here. Either open up Evolution as a non banned topic, or stop spoon feeding everyone into ID. And stop pretending this is an apologetics forum. Call it what it really is.

 

[Peter_Plato]

One does not have to believe in a deity to have beliefs, or are you so ingrained in thinking they must that you can not wrap your head around anything else?

You are feisty! You can put your six shooters back in their holsters, though.

This has nothing to do with me or where my head is wrapped. It goes hand in hand with the “skeptical” posture of some atheists or agnostics (and cornbread might be one) who claim to refrain from holding beliefs on principle.

There are atheists/skeptics/agnostics who staunchly claim that they do not hold or subscribe to beliefs (which are not confirmed or confirmable) because beliefs are untenable. These people claim that they subscribe only to provable or established “facts” or conclusions which are “known” and not merely “believed.”

In light of this, reread my post.

I’ll accept your apology.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If you think design is not an argument against evolution, you do not understand evolution. This site has banned it from discussion so that your ID people can take over the discussion. You can win everytime when you bann anyone who does not agree.

I hate the dishonesty here. Either open up Evolution as a non banned topic, or stop spoon feeding everyone into ID. And stop pretending this is an apologetics forum. Call it what it really is.

The dishonesty is in your own head.

If your case holds, then every thread that concerns the existence of God, and every thread about God per se, should be halted because positive arguments about the existence of God are anti-atheistic, since threads about atheism are also banned.

In the words of Winnie the Pooh
Think! Think! Think!
pooh.wikia.com/wiki/Think,_Think,_Think

That would be two apologies.

As to “…this site has banned it from discussion so that your ID people can take over the discussion…,” there is nothing stopping people from presenting a case against design, as has been done by many in this thread. Try reading from the beginning,

That makes three.

 

[Bradski]

Also, as D’Souza said in their debate, this concept applies just as much in the field of science as religion: "If you’re born in Oxford, Englad you’re more likely to believe the theory of evolution than if you’re born in Oxford, Mississippi. If you’re born in New Guinea, you’re less likely to believe in Einstein’s theory of relativity than if you’re born in New York City.

Nice own goal. That simply shows the accuracy of the original point.

If you’re brought up in the boondocks of Mississippi, then it’s pretty well certain that you’ll be a Christian who believes in Creationism. If you were born in Oxford, England, there’s a fair chance you’ll be an Anglican who has no problem with evolution.

Note that D’Sousa asked why should this matter as to the truth of the matter. It doesn’t. The fact that people in the UK believe in evolution doesn’t make it true and the fact that people in Mississippi don’t believe in it doesn’t make it false. But the undeniable fact is that if you are brought up in a particular country you will generally embrace the culture of that country. And that includes, to a significant degree, the religious beliefs of that country.

Loftus is not saying that because people born in India are Hindu therefore Christianity is false. He is saying that what is true is that people invariably follow the religion which formed an integral part of their upbringing, with all the attendant implications of that. I can’t see how that can be denied.

This may not be treated with the seriousness it deserves by people of faith. Mainly because they believe, without any doubt whatsoever, and understandably so, that the other guy is simply wrong.

For an atheist, the more religions there are who say they have the answer, the more denominations within each religion who say that they have the answer and the more arguments within each denomination as to who has got the right answer, the more convincing it becomes that there is no real answer at all.

 

[StrawberryJam]

The dishonesty is in your own head.

If your case holds, then every thread that concerns the existence of God, and every thread about God per se, should be halted because positive arguments about the existence of God are anti-atheistic, since threads about atheism are also banned.

In the words of Winnie the Pooh
Think! Think! Think!
pooh.wikia.com/wiki/Think,_Think,_Think

That would be two apologies.

As to “…this site has banned it from discussion so that your ID people can take over the discussion…,” there is nothing stopping people from presenting a case against design, as has been done by many in this thread. Try reading from the beginning,

That makes three.

You can bully me out of the conversation with soft cuddly images of Disney, but you will not stop me from asking you to live up to your bann on evolution. Either it is a banned discussion, or it is on the table.
To promote an anti science ID like this in the philosophy forum is dishonest.
It only leaves those who disagree to be banned. There is no real conversation going on here. Pure indoctrination only apply.

 

[Peter_Plato]

For an atheist, the more religions there are who say they have the answer, the more denominations within each religion who say that they have the answer and the more arguments within each denomination as to who has got the right answer, the more convincing it becomes that there is no real answer at all.

Actually, that would seem to be convincing evidence that the “answer” is complicated, difficult to ponder and easy to get confused about. All the more reason to believe that God, being all-knowing and benevolent would put some fail-safe strategies in place, like instituting a protected magesterium, that could rule authoritatively on matters of faith and morals that obviously human beings, left to their own devices, have great difficulties with.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Actually, that would seem to be convincing evidence that the “answer” is complicated, difficult to ponder and easy to get confused about. All the more reason to believe that God, being all-knowing and benevolent would put some fail-safe strategies in place, like instituting a protected magesterium, that could rule authoritatively on matters of faith and morals that obviously human beings, left to their own devices, have great difficulties with.

Does this translate to mean:
If it gets too hard to think about just give up and stop thinking. Confusing things are complicated, make it simple for me so I don’t have to think?

 

[Peter_Plato]

You can bully me out of the conversation with soft cuddly images of Disney, but you will not stop me from asking you to live up to your bann on evolution. Either it is a banned discussion, or it is on the table.
To promote an anti science ID like this in the philosophy forum is dishonest.
It only leaves those who disagree to be banned. There is no real conversation going on here. Pure indoctrination only apply.

Rational arguments = bullying?

Apparently you have a highly idiosyncratic view of logic.

Analogy

Following your logic:
Design is to evolution as God is to atheism
Therefore, by your logic, if ID threads should be banned because evolution is, then all threads about God should be because atheism is.

Second:

Even if we accept your premise that ID is anti-science, this is not a science forum, it is a philosophy forum. The premise here is that you don’t have to be a scientist to argue against ID, you just need to be a good philosopher, which apparently you have difficulty with, and which is also why you are crying, “Foul!”

You don’t understand that philosophy is the platform upon which science itself needs to provide its own justification. (Of course, you will disagree with this which will show precisely where indoctrination has been effective)

The justification of ID, philosophically, is handled independently of the justification of science. Both need to stand on their own and apart from each other. That is why philosophy of science is a legitimate field of study. Science cannot justify itself, it must be justified and its parameters set philosophically. (Which, of course, you will also dispute, demonstrating even more convincingly the degree of your indoctrination.)

 

[StrawberryJam]

Rational arguments = bullying?

Apparently you have a highly idiosyncratic view of logic.

Analogy

Following your logic:
Design is to evolution as God is to atheism
Therefore, by your logic, if ID threads should be banned because evolution is, then all threads about God should be because atheism is.

Second:

Even if we accept your premise that ID is anti-science, this is not a science forum, it is a philosophy forum. The premise here is that you don’t have to be a scientist to argue against ID, you just need to be a good philosopher, which apparently you have difficulty with, and which is also why you are crying, “Foul!”

You don’t understand that philosophy is the platform upon which science itself needs to provide its own justification. (Of course, you will disagree with this which will show precisely where indoctrination has been effective)

The justification of ID, philosophically, is handled independently of the justification of science. Both need to stand on their own and apart from each other. That is why philosophy of science is a legitimate field of study. Science cannot justify itself, it must be justified and its parameters set philosophically. (Which, of course, you will also dispute, demonstrating even more convincingly the degree of your indoctrination.)

Athiesm is not a banned topic.
Evolution is.

Please understand the difference.

ID is purely theology and has no bearing on science at all.
The Templeton foundation is trying very hard to woo everyone into thinking there is some talk to be had.
They can go fly a kite.
And so can anyone else who decides to close a conversation and simply put out dogma on a philosophy forum and still pride themselves on being an apologist.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Does this translate to mean:
If it gets too hard to think about just give up and stop thinking. Confusing things are complicated, make it simple for me so I don’t have to think?

No it means a long line of clear thinking has been established by God, which provides cogent, consistent, detailed and reasoned explanations of what we need to know. It has been made available in simple form to those who have difficulty thinking, but also to deep and clear thinkers.

Apparently, from our last few exchanges, you may have some resistance with regard to accepting clarity in “thought.”

I would love to hear rebuttal rather than accusations.

 

[StrawberryJam]

No it means a long line of clear thinking has been established by God, which provides cogent, consistent, detailed and reasoned explanations of what we need to know. It has been made available in simple form to those who have difficulty thinking, but also to deep and clear thinkers.

Apparently, from our last few exchanges, you may have some resistance with regard to accepting clarity in “thought.”

I would love to hear rebuttal rather than accusations.

I refuse to comment because I will be banned by having to explain evolution to you. Since that topic is still banned here, and you all parade your anti evolution garbage here I will continue to object. You can not have it both ways. This is not the mid ages all over again. You will not be able to stuff **** on to people by force anymore. Defend your position or shut the heck up.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Athiesm is not a banned topic.
Evolution is.

Really?

Read forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=408684

Apology #4.

APlease understand the difference.

ID is purely theology and has no bearing on science at all.
The Templeton foundation is trying very hard to woo everyone into thinking there is some talk to be had.
They can go fly a kite.
And so can anyone else who decides to close a conversation and simply put out dogma on a philosophy forum and still pride themselves on being an apologist.

Nonsense! ID is a philosophical position supported by scientific evidence.

There is no known molecular or physical cause for the nucleotide bases to form the elaborate DNA code found in cells. The information embedded in the code is incredibly complex, decipherable and produces the protein mechanisms to allow for the replication of life and transfer of vast amounts of vital information. All of this is scientifically demonstrated.

The claim that the code could have intelligent origin is open to philosophical and scientific dispute. There is no appeal to theology, here.

Apology #5… (You are deeper in debt!)

Just because you want to lump things together to muddy the water, does not mean everyone else has to follow your compulsion.