Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[ReapReason]

Human creativity may be an instrument for God’s creativity. After all, we are here, creative capacities and all, as part of God’s fiat. Humans are not a figment of your imagination with no connection to the creativity of God. We are real and part of the natural order. Who gave you the right and power to divorce us from that? Are you God to overrule what God has done? Speaking of pride… Or do you think we are God’s mistake?

Who gave you the right to make a straw-man of my argument?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Who gave you the right to make a straw-man of my argument?

Well the straw was there so I just made a man of it! But that’s okay because I don’t have God’s powers so the straw man is just a conceptual entity and not real in any sense of the word because it wasn’t made by God.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This does not make sense. How does it follow that because we are created by God that we must have the same powers as God? That’s not an argument, its an assertion.

The capacity to create something does not entail we have the same creative power as God. Does the power to think mean we are omniscient?

More straw!

The object we use as a hammer is real. However a hammer is merely a functional concept, it is purely abstract; it is not an objective nature or essence. I made this irrefutably clear in the part of my post you conveniently left out of your quote.

Was that before or after you got hit in the head by the hammer that was a mere functional concept with no objective nature?

 

[ReapReason]

The capacity to create something does not entail we have the same creative power as God. Does the power to think mean we are omniscient?

I am not the one that is saying this.

More straw!

Exactly; you are becoming a master at producing it.

 

[ReapReason]

Was that before or after you got hit in the head by the hammer that was a mere functional concept with no objective nature?

Remarks like this is to be expected as a substitute to rational understanding.

I am expecting the white flag any moment now…when your ready.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The object we use as a hammer is real. However a hammer is merely a functional concept, it is purely abstract; it is not an objective nature or essence. I made this irrefutably clear in the part of my post you conveniently left out of your quote.

I am not the one that is saying this.

Yes you are!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReapReason
This does not make sense. How does it follow that because we are created by God that we must have the same powers as God? That’s not an argument, its an assertion​

.

You are implying that making a creative change in reality, as when humans create an artifact such as a hammer, can only be done if humans have the same creative power as God, which is more fodder.

Certainly, humans do not create ex nihilo, but that does not mean fashioning a new artifact is not creating in the full sense of the word: adding new form onto matter . Artifacts created by humans are real objects, not mere functional concepts. We change reality by what we make and we don’t need to be God to do that!

 

[tonyrey]

1. The belief that nothing is intrinsically purposeful is based on materialism - which maintains that everything is composed of purposeless elements.

According to your posts you seem to believe in a purposeless physical universe and spiritual development. Isn’t the latter intrinsically purposeful?

If persons are not intrinsically purposeful what are they? Purposeless bodies?

 

[tonyrey]

Of course I don’t cease to be the same person, in the sense that I am centred upon roughly the same configuration of matter and energy…

No response…

I might be the same person, the same proximal identity that I was when I was born, but I have some fairly apparent differences.

“might be” and “proximal” are nebulous.

No response…

The claim of immutability, when applied to an eternal, spiritual being, one that is unimpeded by time, space or indeed any dimensional limitation, implies that there is no change, none whatsoever.

The issue is not “an” eternal being but the Supreme Reality:

No response…

The literal interpretation of divine activity in terms of human activity is clearly unwarranted. God is not a created individual but the Creator of all things visible and invisible. “conceiving of a plan” and “executing that plan” presuppose temporal states which are inapplicable to the Eternal Being.

The phrase “however that might be accomplished by a nonphysical entity” reveals a physicalist mentality which fails to acknowledge the irreducibility of mental events to physical events. How do neural impulses conceive and execute plans?

No response…

I will add, just because it seems to have been largely bypassed by this thread, that Intelligent Design is, demonstrably, a complete failure as science - that is, as a serious attempt to explain the world as we experience it. All it can do is insinuate itself into the ever-decreasing gaps in scientific knowledge.

Physicalism is demonstrably, a complete failure as science - that is, as a serious attempt to explain the world as we experience it. All it can do is insinuate itself into the gaps in scientific knowledge and reveal the desperate lengths to which its adherents will resort to evade the rational, purposeful nature of reality.

No response…

Even Young-Earth Creationism at least makes fact claims, however wrong they have been shown to be. The design hypothesis offers no predictions, no fact claims, even, that could ever be verified.

False! Design predicts that the universe will continue to be orderly, intelligible and predictable, that the principle of induction will continue to be reliable and that persons will continue to make their decisions on the assumption that life is purposeful - and not a freak occurrence caused by fortuitous combinations of molecules.

No response…

All it can do, and ever has done, is assert, prematurely and without support, that some things are inaccessible to science, and therefore must fall under the auspices of supernatural design. Until unequivocal evidence of the identity and direct action of the designer in question is presented, Intelligent Design, as a theory of reality, has nothing going for it.

All materialism can do, and ever has done, is assert, prematurely and without support, that everything is in principle accessible to science, and therefore must fall under the auspices of inscrutable matter. Until unequivocal evidence of the identity and direct action of this purposeless force is presented, Unintelligent Design, as a theory of reality, has nothing going for it - unless one is prepared to declare that everything is fundamentally absurd, thereby destroying the validity of one’s conclusion…
… scientific investigation will continue as long as reality demonstrates itself to be susceptible to scientific explanation.

Irrelevant. It is not self-evident that the whole of reality is physical or scientifically explicable.

Unequivocal evidence of the existence and direct action of blind, impersonal forces has been presented, in every field of scientific endeavour.

Scientific endeavour is only one aspect of human knowledge and not even the most significant.

What has never, ever been demonstrated is that these forces are directed or controlled by any personal entity.

Do you never direct or control impersonal forces?

The entirety of the ID assertion is based upon the existence of gaps in scientific knowledge.

The basis of all knowledge is the existence of rational, purposeful minds.

If there is actual evidence of design, scientific investigation will uncover it.

Scientific investigation is restricted to purposeless events. Design is beyond its remit.

What won’t uncover it is the assertion made by ID ‘theorists’ that such-and-such a phenomenon “can’t” be explained by science, before thorough investigation has even been undertaken.

Science cannot investigate or explain metascientific principles.

It’s almost as if such people don’t actually want anyone to find out how all these supposedly “irreducibly complex” phenomena actually came about.

“such people” are more realistic than those who have blind faith in the power of science to explain everything - including science itself.

If nobody knows, the ID proponent can assert his or her pet supernaturalist theory.

All schools of materialism are based on the unsubstantiated assumption that everything originates in matter.

At the end of the day, there is no necessity for the universe itself to have a purpose.

This assertion presupposes privileged insight into the nature of reality!

It simply is.

On what evidence is this claim based?

Purpose, from everything we have thus far been able to discern, requires the evolution of intelligent, subjective, self-directed beings who can develop and imagine their own purposes.

How has it been discerned that persons are derived solely from impersonal particles?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

This is pretty heated stuff, right here. I’m glad the debate has improved from arguments such as “only true love can create” and what not.

 

[ReapReason]

Scientific investigation is restricted to purposeless events. Design is beyond its remit.

Since you know this to be true, why do you support ID science? Or am i mistaken?

 

[prodigalson2011]

We don’t need to be God to have an objective effect on reality. We are part of the natural world so any way that we change reality is a real change on it, that includes adding objective teleological function into the natural world. A hammer, conceived and manufactured by human activity is as real a part of the natural order as any object or particle that was there before. It does not become “unreal” merely because it was made by a human being. Aye! There’s the rub(bish)!

This is almost exactly how I was going to respond to ReapReason’s last comment to me. It is completely absurd to argue that the physical results of human intelligence and activity do not constitute an objective reality. The only difference between hammers and atoms is that atoms are arranged by natural forces and hammers are arranged by human beings. Both are equally tangible and definable. Plus, he has been conflating so many different concepts (teleology, nature, final cause, etc.) its hard to keep track of where he’s going with his arguments. I’ve been going non stop today and it’s about time for me to go to bed, but I wanted to respond to his last retort before calling it a day. But since you’ve already done it for me… thanks!

 

[ReapReason]

It is completely absurd to argue that the physical results of human intelligence and activity do not constitute an objective reality.

I tired of seeing you two twist my words to suit your pride. I will leave you two to be content with your straw-men.

The difference between hammers and atoms: atoms have an objective intrinsic behaviour, identity, and final cause. A hammer is a concept imposed upon an object in order to achieve an end that is not intrinsic to the nature or identity of the object being used. Hammering in nails is evidently not its final cause.

My real argument stands irrefutable like it or not. Goodbye.

 

[Peter_Plato]

My real argument stands irrefutable like it or not. Goodbye.

You must mean unrefuted, if it was irrefutable there would be no possible way to refute it. I am not clear that your argument is that strong.

However, it was a slice. Thanks for hanging in as long as you did.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This is almost exactly how I was going to respond to ReapReason’s last comment to me. It is completely absurd to argue that the physical results of human intelligence and activity do not constitute an objective reality. The only difference between hammers and atoms is that atoms are arranged by natural forces and hammers are arranged by human beings. Both are equally tangible and definable. Plus, he has been conflating so many different concepts (teleology, nature, final cause, etc.) its hard to keep track of where he’s going with his arguments. I’ve been going non stop today and it’s about time for me to go to bed, but I wanted to respond to his last retort before calling it a day. But since you’ve already done it for me… thanks!

Things did get a little blurry there. I enjoyed your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[tonyrey]

Since you know this to be true, why do you support ID science? Or am i mistaken?

Design is not “ID science”. Design is a metaphysical explanation which uses science, the arts and other forms of knowledge as evidence that reality is rational and purposeful.

 

[rossum]

According to your posts you seem to believe in a purposeless physical universe and spiritual development. Isn’t the latter intrinsically purposeful?

The physical universe is indeed purposeless. Purpose is assigned by the beings living in that universe.

If persons are not intrinsically purposeful what are they? Purposeless bodies?

At any given time a person may have zero or more purposes. Those purposes may change. Those purposes may be intrinsic or extrinsic. A worker has the purpose to earn money in return for time spent at work. The employer has the purpose to get certain tasks completed in return for her money.

Purposes are not fixed; they change during our lives. You appear to be reifying purpose.

rossum

 

[rossum]

A dog is the same dog because it persists through time with expected changes.

We disagree. If it “changes” then it is not the same as it was before. Change requires difference over time; sameness results in stasis, not change.

I will agree that the changes are small and not significant, but this is my point about models. Ten years later the changes in the dog are obvious. We can approximate to reality by working on a short term basis of “small changes ≈ no change” but this remains an approximation. An attempt to project that approximation back onto reality is an error.

rossum

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Design is not “ID science”. Design is a metaphysical explanation which uses science, the arts and other forms of knowledge as evidence that reality is rational and purposeful.

What do you mean by that? There is certainly no objective purpose to life, and I have no idea what you mean by reality being rational. If you mean everything must have an explanation, I’d agree. But surely that goes without saying.

 

[rossum]

Scientific investigation is restricted to purposeless events. Design is beyond its remit.

You had better inform every forensic scientist and archaeologist in the world that they are all in error then, since both those disciplines are based in part on distinguishing between design and non-design.

You do not appear to be connecting with the real world here. Can the police not use science to investigate a purposeful crime? “He was shot so we are unable to investigate. A shooting is a purposeful act.” You really need to think things through more before you post.

rossum

 

[ReapReason]

You had better inform every forensic scientist and archaeologist in the world that they are all in error then, since both those disciplines are based in part on distinguishing between design and non-design.

They use the scientific method in their investigation. But that does not mean that they are pure sciences, insofar as their explanations.