Intelligent Design is Self-refuting

  • Thread starter Thread starter rossum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Faith is not conclusion of science. So neither it can be proven nor it can be refuted through science. If one try to find Faith by science he cannot because the way of science go to materials. But Faith should be suppported by science. Faith was not revealed through science. Faith was advised through a supernatural way!. All people are not scientist. The way of God is wide and easily. But if someone try to go on a difficult way so nobody can prevent and also God allow choices. I think we argue philosophical thoughts very much which make the issue confused. We cannot reject Moses and Jesus and Muhammad and their miracles and revelations. We just can accept or reject. If you can reject prophets then you can argue so much philosophical arguments. The start point is not philosophical arguments. Faith do not emerge from such thoughts. Faith was revealed directly by God.

Mind and heart and soul can find that Designer(Creator). But not just mind!
 
HarryStotle said:
Nothing else need be eternal.
Click to expand...
But something else might be, the Dharmakaya or Brahman for example, to take examples from Buddhism and Hinduism. If one eternal thing can exist, then other eternal things are possible. If you want to claim that God is the only eternal thing then you will have to provide some support for your statement.
 
HarryStotle said:
That means God, properly understood, is not a “constituent element” at all but the eternal ground for the possibility of existence. Hj
Click to expand...
B: Hey, that’s the definition of my god as well.
H: Then it’s the same god.
B: No. Can’t be. Your’s takes a keen interest in this particular planet. Mine doesn’t.

Where can we go from here? We’ve now got two gods. If my neighbour Fred wants to choose one, how does he know which is the real one?
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
But something else might be, the Dharmakaya or Brahman for example, to take examples from Buddhism and Hinduism. If one eternal thing can exist, then other eternal things are possible. If you want to claim that God is the only eternal thing then you will have to provide some support for your statement.
Click to expand...
Do any one think that Buddhism or Hinduism is some kind of changed revelation from the unique God? So that God had taken many different attributes and names!
 
HarryStotle said:
Well you can CLAIM the universe came into existence without a cause, but modern Big Bang cosmology points at a determinable beginning point for space-time, matter and energy.
Click to expand...
You are missing my point. I can claim anything I want BEFORE the big bang. Why are you limiting me to physical theorems and scientific principles if YOU throw them out on a whim to bypass known fallacies in your argument?
I do not do in my arguments, I am pointing out you do it in yours.
HarryStotle said:
The difference is that science cannot pursue a cause beyond space-time, matter and energy because, methodologically speaking, science is restricted to space-time, matter and energy by its very methodology.
Click to expand...
Again, I am not bringing up a scientific argument. I am pointing out that your argument is invalid because YOU throw out any scientific laws or worse - laws about logic and critical thinking.

I want to have a level playing field. You don’t. If you want to cheat by defining God as that which has no cause, I can easily also define the universe as that which has no cause. This is why the cosmological arguments are hogwash. Special Pleading IS a fallacy. You have accomplished nothing.

Start with this: The mathematical foundations of the vacuum potential which laid the foundations for the Big Bang had NO CAUSE. Therefore, I worship the Number 5.

The above is effectively a cosmological argument. It’s not a serious framework for proving anything.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
The first option contradicts the basic premise of ID, stated in the first paragraph: specified complex human level intelligence can arise through evolution without requiring intelligent design.

The second option also contradicts the basic premise of ID, stated in the first paragraph: specified complex intelligence, superior to human intelligence, has arisen without requiring design.
Click to expand...
This all too familiar Rossum argument, no doubt has been responded to, as it has in the past, in the many posts above.

Complexity can be defined in a number of ways, but basically has to do with the relationships that exist between the components of a system with one another and the system as a whole.

The idea arises from what we find in nature, and in human relations, that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Complex systems exhibit novel properties that are in addition to those of its constituents, occuring by virtue of an order imposed on their behaviour. To illustrate, here we are engaged in a dialogue as a bunch of atoms doing what they do, regulated by an almost infinitely complex order, which is the person. In contrast, a chaotic system, allows for the unconstrained behaviour of its members. This we find in death, where freed from such constraints, our bodies revert back to what they are, “dust”.

We should remind ourselves that the atoms that constitute that dust are in themselves, microsystems, made up of subatomic specific relationships, the physics which allows for the chemistry.

Intelligence can be understood to be rooted in our spiritual reality, which involves a special kind of relationship, that of knowing. That capacity orders our physical being such that we are able to participate in time and space.

( As an aside, in reponses to another poster above, time is brought into existence right here and now, as is the entire collection of all moments from eternity.)

God is Truth, as He is Beauty and Goodness, ultimately Love, as the Triune Godhead. He is omniscient and omnipotent, bringing the grand symphony that is the universe, into existence, from its beginning to its end. Transcendent, He is No-thing; in Christ, He is the Way in which His creation can return to Him what has been given freely, and thereby enter into eternal communion with Him.
 
Last edited:

Why Unconditioned Reality Must be Absolutely Simple​

IDvolution.org

IDvolution - Where faith and reason intersect. - intelligent design Jim Serafin
idvolution.blogspot.com idvolution.blogspot.com
 
Aloysium said:
Complexity can be defined in a number of ways, but basically has to do with the relationships that exist between the components of a system with one another and the system as a whole.
Click to expand...
Complexity can indeed be defined in many ways. Since this thread related to Intelligent Design, I have used the ID definition of complexity as proposed by Dr. Dembski.

Since ID is very careful to use scientific definitions it is true that ID’s definition of complexity is a scientific one, not a theological one. That is a deliberate choice by the ID side, as they wished to move away from theology so that ID could be taught in science classes, rather than in Comparative Religion classes.
 
I’ve read the not so secret Wedge Document. I read about Dover. Apparently, there is a very real fear that God or any god might appear in the classroom.

One poster here said that the Church does not mention or use the word design. In an Op-Ed article for the New York Times titled Finding Design in Nature, Cardinal Christof Schoenborn tells readers that there is actual design in nature. This is in opposition to Richard Dawkins claiming that things only appear to be designed. Catholics should take note of this. Is ID science? Yes. And that is why scientists have been forced to develop tools to take the human genome apart like a very complicated machine so they can learn things about how it actually works. All findings must be testable and repeatable so other scientists can join in to find sites that can lead to disease and potential drug targets.
 
Bradskii said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
That means God, properly understood, is not a “constituent element” at all but the eternal ground for the possibility of existence. Hj
Click to expand...
B: Hey, that’s the definition of my god as well.
H: Then it’s the same god.
B: No. Can’t be. Your’s takes a keen interest in this particular planet. Mine doesn’t.

Where can we go from here? We’ve now got two gods. If my neighbour Fred wants to choose one, how does he know which is the real one?
Click to expand...
He will find out in due time, I suppose.

The case could be made that it isn’t merely neighbors who believe in God who are in the same predicament, but so are atheist neighbors who believe different things about the repercussions of no God. Perhaps we will be judged on our tenacity – or lack thereof – in our pursuit of truth.

We are all in the same condition of ignorance, so it behooves us all not to be WILLFULLY ignorant, but sincere and completely open to searching for the truth.

How Fred knows or discovers which is the real God might mean a journey of deep introspection and reflection on reality. What Fred isn’t to do, however, is just throw up his hands, give a shoulder shrug and conclude, “No matter, it is of no concern to me in any case. I couldn’t care less.”

The manner of God’s “keen interest,” or lack thereof, in the planet should be less a concern for B than his own lack of a “keen interest.” Perhaps B is merely projecting his own lack of a “keen interest” onto the God he conceives, when really it is his own lack that he is imagining.
 
HarryStotle said:
40.png
Bradskii:
40.png
HarryStotle:
That means God, properly understood, is not a “constituent element” at all but the eternal ground for the possibility of existence. Hj
Click to expand...
B: Hey, that’s the definition of my god as well.
H: Then it’s the same god.
B: No. Can’t be. Your’s takes a keen interest in this particular planet. Mine doesn’t.

Where can we go from here? We’ve now got two gods. If my neighbour Fred wants to choose one, how does he know which is the real one?
Click to expand...
He will find out in due time, I suppose.

The case could be made that it isn’t merely neighbors who believe in God who are in the same predicament, but so are atheist neighbors who believe different things about the repercussions of no God. Perhaps we will be judged on our tenacity – or lack thereof – in our pursuit of truth.

We are all in the same condition of ignorance, so it behooves us all not to be WILLFULLY ignorant, but sincere and completely open to searching for the truth.

How Fred knows or discovers which is the real God might mean a journey of deep introspection and reflection on reality. What Fred isn’t to do, however, is just throw up his hands, give a shoulder shrug and conclude, “No matter, it is of no concern to me in any case. I couldn’t care less.”

The manner of God’s “keen interest,” or lack thereof, in the planet should be less a concern for B than his own lack of a “keen interest.” Perhaps B is merely projecting his own lack of a “keen interest” onto the God he conceives, when really it is his own lack that he is imagining.
Click to expand...
I think you’ve missed the point. How can H and B both claim that their god is the only one? How do we discount one of the claims?
 
edwest211 said:
I’ve read the not so secret Wedge Document. I read about Dover. Apparently, there is a very real fear that God or any god might appear in the classroom. .
Click to expand...
No fear at all. As long as He doesn’t appear in the science class.
 
Man the barricades! Check every backpack for creationist literature! God must not return to public schools anywhere!

If there was no fear, such statements would never appear.
 
edwest211 said:
And that is why scientists have been forced to develop tools to take the human genome apart like a very complicated machine so they can learn things about how it actually works.
Click to expand...
But if they find natural answers in their search for knowledge then, because of your fundamentalist beliefs, you deny them.

You can’t pick and choose which bits you like and which you don’t.

Good grief. What am I saying! Of course you can. You do it all the time. Like the age of the planet for example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top