Conclusive evidence for Design!

[Sair]

It would cast doubt on God’s goodness if He let us disappear forever - regardless of what we deserve after living in a world with so much heroic love and self-sacrifice on the one hand and evil and injustice on the other…

Whether or not it would cast doubt upon God’s goodness is a bit of a moot point if it already casts doubt upon God’s existence. Just because we like the idea of an afterlife, doesn’t mean we get one. There are several key pieces of evidence missing, like unambiguous communication with persons who have died, for one thing. Even so-called psychics who claim to be able to receive messages from the deceased are correct in their suppositions only about as frequently as one would expect from the balance of probabilities and their well-practised ‘cold reading’.

In any case, why is it necessary for a person’s spirit or essence or whatever to last forever in order for suffering, heroic love or self-sacrifice to have meaning? Surely these all become sharper and more demanding if we only get one chance…

 

[tonyrey]

It would cast doubt on God’s goodness if He let us disappear forever - regardless of what we deserve after living in a world with so much heroic love and self-sacrifice on the one hand and evil and injustice on the other…

I’m not sure what “it” refers to! Do you have evidence that we disappear forever?

Just because we like the idea of an afterlife, doesn’t mean we get one.

It is not a question of liking (or disliking for that matter) but logic.

There are several key pieces of evidence missing, like unambiguous communication with persons who have died, for one thing. Even so-called psychics who claim to be able to receive messages from the deceased are correct in their suppositions only about as frequently as one would expect from the balance of probabilities and their well-practised ‘cold reading’.

Evidence of communication is unnecessary unless one is a materialist. There is no reason to believe there must be contact with those who have died.

In any case, why is it necessary for a person’s spirit or essence or whatever to last forever in order for suffering, heroic love or self-sacrifice to have meaning?

It isn’t! But there is far more meaning if injustice is rectified and the victims are compensated.

Surely these all become sharper and more demanding if we only get one chance…

In this world many do not even get one chance…

 

[Jesusaves777]

Will this stupid topic never die out? Without a proper epistemological method to decide if something is **natural **or designed, the whole question is nonsensical. As a matter of fact, here is one question to the proponenets of “design”: “Is there anything natural (undesinged)?” If you say “yes”, then comes the second one: “how do you know?”. If you say “no”, then your whole proposition is ridiculous.

I agree!! Big Bang and evolution has never been proven thus, making this a circular argument. I put a quote from an atheist evolutionist saying that they would rather believe in the impossible…the debate is over.

 

[Jesusaves777]

I forgot to welcome you to the forum. We look forward to more posts from you. May you and your family have a joyful Christmas.

Thank you very much! And you also have a blessed Christmas.

 

[Jesusaves777]

Whether or not it would cast doubt upon God’s goodness is a bit of a moot point if it already casts doubt upon God’s existence. Just because we like the idea of an afterlife, doesn’t mean we get one. There are several key pieces of evidence missing, like unambiguous communication with persons who have died, for one thing. Even so-called psychics who claim to be able to receive messages from the deceased are correct in their suppositions only about as frequently as one would expect from the balance of probabilities and their well-practised ‘cold reading’.

In any case, why is it necessary for a person’s spirit or essence or whatever to last forever in order for suffering, heroic love or self-sacrifice to have meaning? Surely these all become sharper and more demanding if we only get one chance…

I think it’s nice that you quote Chapman Cohen, an uneducated Marxist(Communist) who had little knowledge of Christianity.

 

[Sair]

I think it’s nice that you quote Chapman Cohen, an uneducated Marxist(Communist) who had little knowledge of Christianity.

As to that, it seems that detailed knowledge of Christianity can be detrimental to common sense, if highly conducive to doublethink and cognitive dissonance. I am reminded of Richard Dawkins’ response to his critics after the publication of The God Delusion - in particular those who pointed out that he was unaware of the ‘finer points’ of theological discourse. Well, if you’re unable to demonstrate that the being whose nature you’re discussing actually exists in the first place, what’s the point? Sure, you can debate God’s character and motivations as if he were a literary character, but frankly I think Hamlet or Macbeth or King Lear would provide more fertile ground.

Not to mention the fact that Jesus was supposed to have favoured the ‘simple’ folk, so if anyone was ripe to embrace his teaching, it would surely be the uneducated! You know, the ones who can spot the fact that the emperor is actually naked…

 

[Sair]

I agree!! Big Bang and evolution has never been proven thus, making this a circular argument. I put a quote from an atheist evolutionist saying that they would rather believe in the impossible…the debate is over.

“I know you are, but what am I?”

I think you’ll find that there’s a much vaster matrix of mutually supportive evidence for the big bang and for evolution by natural selection than there is for the proposition that God ‘intelligently’ designed the universe and everything in it. The ID camp are missing a key component, for a start, in the form of the verifiable presence of an actual designing entity. Even if such a being were convincingly identified, if you’re looking at animals in particular, there are numerous examples of what could be called supremely unintelligent design, so the ‘designer’ might more properly be called a ‘tinkerer’.

 

[tonyrey]

As to that, it seems that detailed knowledge of Christianity can be detrimental to common sense, if highly conducive to doublethink and cognitive dissonance. I am reminded of Richard Dawkins’ response to his critics after the publication of The God Delusion - in particular those who pointed out that he was unaware of the ‘finer points’ of theological discourse. Well, if you’re unable to demonstrate that the being whose nature you’re discussing actually exists in the first place, what’s the point? Sure, you can debate God’s character and motivations as if he were a literary character, but frankly I think Hamlet or Macbeth or King Lear would provide more fertile ground.

Not to mention the fact that Jesus was supposed to have favoured the ‘simple’ folk, so if anyone was ripe to embrace his teaching, it would surely be the uneducated! You know, the ones who can spot the fact that the emperor is actually naked…

Blind faith in materialism is undoubtedly highly conducive to doublethink and cognitive dissonance! It implies that reality is so naked it is incapable of reaching rational conclusions…

 

[Sair]

Blind faith in materialism is undoubtedly highly conducive to doublethink and cognitive dissonance! It implies that reality is so naked it is incapable of reaching rational conclusions…

Care to actually explain what you mean by this? In what ways is materialism conducive to doublethink? It doesn’t require me, for example, to believe - in the absence of evidence - that I have an immortal soul that will survive my death; nor does it require me to believe that reality requires magic in order to exist. What rational conclusions do you think can only be reached by appeal to magic?

 

[tonyrey]

“I know you are, but what am I?”

I think you’ll find that there’s a much vaster matrix of mutually supportive evidence for the big bang and for evolution by natural selection than there is for the proposition that God ‘intelligently’ designed the universe and everything in it.

It is acknowledge by many biologists that natural selection is an inadequate explanation of progressive development.

The ID camp are missing a key component, for a start, in the form of the verifiable presence of an actual designing entity.

In that case you are an illusion!

Even if such a being were convincingly identified, if you’re looking at animals in particular, there are numerous examples of what could be called supremely unintelligent design, so the ‘designer’ might more properly be called a ‘tinkerer’.

The term “tinkerer” is more appropriately applied to the person who stakes **everything **on visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, proprioceptive, equilibrioceptive, nociceptive, thermoceptive and chronoceptive perceptions…

To demand perfection in an immensely complex system is absurd.

 

[tonyrey]

Care to actually explain what you mean by this? In what ways is materialism conducive to doublethink? It doesn’t require me, for example, to believe - in the absence of evidence - that I have an immortal soul that will survive my death; nor does it require me to believe that reality requires magic in order to exist. What rational conclusions do you think can only be reached by appeal to magic?

It requires you to believe - in the total absence of evidence - that you are the purposeless product of purposeless events that require purposeless magic in order to create you. What** rational conclusions do you think can only be reached by appeal to the purposeless magic of irrational **events?

 

[tonyrey]

It requires you to believe - in the total absence of evidence - that you are the purposeless product of purposeless events that require purposeless magic in order to create you. What** rational conclusions do you think can only be reached by appeal to the purposeless magic of irrational **events?

                             Materialism also requires you to believe - in the total absence of evidence -  that  you are no more than a totally valueless, insignificant and accidental speck in the darkness of eternity that exists for no reason whatsoever, thereby completely undermining every shred of your claim to be reasonable.

Garbage in garbage out!

 

[tonyrey]

The term “tinkerer” is more appropriately applied to the person who stakes **everything **on visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, proprioceptive, equilibrioceptive, nociceptive, thermoceptive and chronoceptive perceptions…

“perceptions” is the keyword of course because it excludes **rational **interpretation of those perceptions…

 

[Sair]

It is acknowledge by many biologists that natural selection is an inadequate explanation of progressive development.

Which ones?

Certainly there are proposals for various forms of selection, as to which organisms survive and reproduce and which ones don’t, but at the end of the day, they are all natural.

In that case you are an illusion!

So I designed myself, then, did I? I think your attempt at side-stepping the issue here fails rather spectacularly.

The term “tinkerer” is more appropriately applied to the person who stakes **everything **on visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, proprioceptive, equilibrioceptive, nociceptive, thermoceptive and chronoceptive perceptions…

What exactly are you hoping to demonstrate or imply here? That your designing deity is bound by the laws of physics? Is hampered by a lack of foreknowledge as to how each new model of an animal body might work in its environment? Can only work with pre-existing forms, rather than creating from scratch every time? Or is this word salad just another failed attempt at diversion from the fact that you can’t offer any support for the notion that a perfect, all-powerful designer exists yet chooses to make a universe that looks like it arose and evolved naturally?

To demand perfection in an immensely complex system is absurd.

Only if you don’t believe in a perfect designer. You may have noticed that I don’t demand perfection, but accept what nature does; I simply wonder how those who believe in intelligent design can justify their belief in the absence of key pieces of evidence that might lend weight to such a hypothesis.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You mean only if you believe in a designer which requires Communion through Free-Will. Thus your free-will choice is life or death, the stairway to either is a continued thought process moment by moment which indicates the Free-Will.

With a perfectly given world what we would then have is everything given without ones cooperation to obtain.

 

[tonyrey]

It is acknowledged by many biologists that natural selection is an inadequate explanation of progressive development.

So I designed myself, then, did I? I think your attempt at side-stepping the issue here fails rather spectacularly.Have you** ever **designed anything? If so what enabled you to do it? So far you have spectacularly side-stepped the issue with your dismal failure to explain how your power of reason originated…

The term “tinkerer” is more appropriately applied to the person who stakes **everything **

on visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, proprioceptive, equilibrioceptive, nociceptive, thermoceptive and chronoceptive perceptions… What exactly are you hoping to demonstrate or imply here? That your designing deity is bound by the laws of physics?It is not a question of hoping - unlike the wishful thinking of materialists - but of understanding the inadequacy of staking everything on perceptions when interpreting reality.

Is hampered by a lack of foreknowledge as to how each new model of an animal body might work in its environment? Can only work with pre-existing forms, rather than creating from scratch every time? Or is this word salad just another failed attempt at diversion from the fact that you can’t offer any support for the notion that a perfect, all-powerful designer exists yet chooses to make a universe that looks like it arose and evolved naturally?

Your word salad **still **fails to explain how the power of reason - on which you inconsistently and constantly rely - has been magically produced by its purposeless creation from scratch out of an entirely fortuitous environment which didn’t have the slightest idea of what it was doing yet succeeded in spite of a total lack of insight and foreknowledge.

Let absurdity reign supreme!

[/QUOTE]

 

[tonyrey]

You mean only if you believe in a designer which requires Communion through Free-Will. Thus your free-will choice is life or death, the stairway to either is a continued thought process moment by moment which indicates the Free-Will.

With a perfectly given world what we would then have is everything given without ones cooperation to obtain.

Irrefutable!

 

[Sair]

An outstanding example is Mary Jane West-Eberhard with the results of her research described in the authoritative book* Developmental Plasticity and Evolution *

The opening sentence of her paper mentions environment and genes, both natural phenomena; good luck finding evidence for an intelligent designer in this work.

“they are all natural” begs the question!

Then what are they? The ball is in your court, as an ID supporter, to back up your insistence that there is no way natural mechanisms could lead to the diversity of life as we observe it. Scientists only cite natural mechanisms because there is no evidence of anything else.

Have you** ever **designed anything? If so what enabled you to do it? So far you have spectacularly side-stepped the issue with your dismal failure to explain how your power of reason originated…

I’ve said many times before that reason is, at its most basic, the ability to perceive a relationship between cause and effect. The fine-tuning of this perception, through evolutionary and intellectual development, is what allows intelligent beings to design objects that will have specific effects in naturalistic contexts. But, of course, a magical god would have no need of such perception - anything it wanted to make would just come about, with a snap of the supernatural fingers - no perception or even any intelligence required!

It is not a question of hoping - unlike the wishful thinking of materialists - but of understanding the inadequacy of staking everything on perceptions when interpreting reality.

How are ID believers not staking everything on perceptions? Or, to be more accurate, on the failure of perceptions? You assume that naturalism is inadequate, without taking the time and effort to fully explore the possibilities of nature, and then say, “Well, it’s not enough.” But what would be enough? Your imaginary gods are enough for believers, but you need actual evidence of a designer to convince those who have not already been brainwashed by religion.

Your word salad **still **fails to explain how the power of reason - on which you inconsistently and constantly rely - has been magically produced by its purposeless creation from scratch out of an entirely fortuitous environment which didn’t have the slightest idea of what it was doing yet succeeded in spite of a total lack of insight and foreknowledge.

Interaction of chemical signals and cellular structures should not be underestimated. There is no magic involved - only cause and effect. Please try to cast aside the arrogance that leads you to suppose that human intelligence could only arise from divine intelligence - really, we are not so exalted. If you allow for the idea that simpler chemical and cellular interactions can lead to what we experience as ‘intelligence’, it opens up a world of wonder and fascination, as well as humility and deep understanding. The thing is, natural selection does not have, and never had, an ultimate goal - where we are now really is the result of a fortuitous environment, coupled with biochemical factors, that allowed us to get to where we are without any insight or foreknowledge of where we “should” be going.

Let absurdity reign supreme!

As it certainly must, in the realms of ID ‘theory’…

 

[tonyrey]

An outstanding example is Mary Jane West-Eberhard with the results of her research described in the authoritative book Developmental Plasticity and Evolution **

To base a conclusion on one sentence reveals a shallow preconception of both the book and development. The mention of environment and genes certainly doesn’t justify belief in natural selection as the dominant factor - which is precisely the assumption that is questioned!

The ball is in your court, as an ID supporter, to back up your insistence that there is no way natural mechanisms could lead to the diversity of life as we observe it.

You constantly fail to distinguish Design and ID. The null hypothesis is that** no one knows the nature of reality **- unless of course one has privileged insight (for which some evidence is required).

Scientists only cite natural mechanisms because there is no evidence of anything else.

Total nonsense! Our starting point is our knowledge of our thoughts, feelings, choices and perceptions **on which all other knowledge is based.
**

I’ve said many times before that reason is, at its most basic, the ability to perceive a relationship between cause and effect.

“at its most basic” gives the game away. You need to justify your assumption that the perception of a relationship between cause and effect is the **sole **basis of reasoning…

But, of course, a magical god would have no need of such perception - anything it wanted to make would just come about, with a snap of the supernatural fingers - no perception or even any intelligence required!

Irrelevant nonsense which reveals once again an irrational hatred of religion - which is not even the topic of the thread!

It is not a question of hoping - unlike the wishful thinking of materialists - but of understanding

the inadequacy of staking everything on perceptions. How are ID believers not staking everything on perceptions?

Design is based on the fact that our primary data are our thoughts, feelings, choices and perceptions.

Or to be more accurate, on the failure of perceptions?

To be more accurate the fallibility of perceptions which are worthless without thoughts.

Your imaginary gods are enough for believers, but you need actual evidence of a designer to convince those who have not already been brainwashed by religion.

Another irrational tirade against religion - which is not even the topic of the thread! It seems the main driving force in your life is negative: a violent and unnatural urge to attack and destroy at every opportunity belief in anything except “natural” objects.

Your word salad **still **

fails to explain how the power of reason - on which you inconsistently and constantly rely - has been magically produced by its purposeless creation from scratch out of an entirely fortuitous environment…Interaction of chemical signals and cellular structures should not be underestimated.

They certainly should not be worshipped as **the sole basis **of intellectual development.

There is no magic involved - only cause and effect.

To be precise “natural cause” and “natural effect” which totally overlook “mental cause” and “mental effect”, thereby justifying the conclusion that in your scheme of things we are no more than cogs in a machine…

Please try to cast aside the arrogance that leads you to suppose that human intelligence could only arise from divine intelligence - really, we are not so exalted.

A request which overlooks the arrogance that leads you to suppose - without a shred of evidence - that human intelligence is the product of the unintelligent “interaction of chemical signals and cellular structures”.

If you allow for the idea that simpler chemical and cellular interactions can lead to what we experience as ‘intelligence’, it opens up a world of wonder and fascination, as well as humility and deep understanding.

It does precisely the opposite and stems from hubris with its assumption that you know for a fact and “deep understanding” that everything whatsoever has a chemical origin. It reveals a shallow and superficial explanation of the power that is responsible for the success of science and our incredible ability to control not only ourselves but also the destiny of this planet.

The thing is, natural selection does not have, and never had, an ultimate goal - where we are now really is the result of a fortuitous environment, coupled with biochemical factors, that allowed us to get to where we are without any insight or foreknowledge of where we “should” be going.

You have really let the cat out of the bag! The key word in your sentence is “fortuitous” despite your claims that Chance is not at the root of your ideology. No doubt the biochemical factors also exist fortuitously, no matter how opportune they happen to be for a rational existence…

Let absurdity reign supreme!

As it certainly must, in the realms of ID ‘theory’…

Design is not based on the hypothesis of a fortuitous environment but on the primacy of reason. A simpleton can judge which of the two is the better recipe for absurdity. How on earth can it be more rational to reduce reason to a valueless, purposeless, fortuitous and insignificant phenomenon?

 

[tonyrey]

But, of course, a magical god would have no need of such perception - anything it wanted to make would just come about, with a snap of the supernatural fingers - no perception or even any intelligence required!

The irrelevant nonsense is also irreverent, infringing the forum rules yet again…