It is an excellent video.
The fact that you have only existed for a finite period of time kind of throws a monkey wrench into that assessment.
The criteria may be simple, but I think it’s adequate. Of course, I’m open to making improvements.
You are missing a third option.So you either designed yourself or you’re an accident…
You have not provided evidence for this.
As I understand, being born is not the same as being designed.The fact that you have only existed for a finite period of time kind of throws a monkey wrench into that assessment.
I just showed you how it is inadequate in the case of humans. If you still think it is adequate, I can’t help you with reading.
Well, your birth was the result of your parents. That’s intelligence giving rise to intelligence.
See above.
My ancestors, at some point, were relatively unintelligent. Therefore, if you go back far enough, unintelligence gives rise to intelligence! SNAP!
I agree that the species of our ancestors evolved into modern day humans. As far as design goes, it all comes down to one’s predisposition toward the question: is the evolutionary process itself designed or not?
Design is unnecessary for evolution. In any competing environment, the winners win, the losers die.
Isn’t that just an assumption, though? We have to ask ourselves what the best explanation for some set of data is. I’ve given my own reason for thinking that evolution - but more generally, the laws of nature - are designed. What’s your reason for thinking it isn’t?
There is no evidence for it. As evolution shows, complexity does not mean that something must be designed.
You’re basically reasserting your original contention. The criteria that I’m arguing counts as evidence is that the evolutionary process, and the laws of nature in general, a) do not possess intelligence, and b) act for a certain end.
Earlier, I gave two reasons to think this isn’t the case. 1) In order for an explanation to be best, we don’t have to have an explanation of the explanation. 2) The Designer is intelligent, so the criteria of design don’t apply.
If nothing in the universe could possibly disprove your hypothesis (since you say everything is evidence), then your position is unfalsifiable and should be thrown away.
Both.
Two points: 1) I never said everything was evidence. I said that two specific attributes of the laws of nature make them plausibly designed. 2) If you cannot disprove your own falsifiability criterion, then on your own terms that same criterion ought to be thrown away.
Okay. Now, can you point out what the absurdity is? Does the design hypothesis violate some law of logic?
So hows designer falsfiyibale.
Infinite regress terminated by special pleading is pretty funny-absurd.
First, my point is that something doesn’t need to be falsifiable in order to be rationally believed. To answer your question, though, a Designer could be falsified by demonstrating either some compelling improbability in such a hypothesis, or else showing that the very idea of a Designer is logically absurd.
That’s technically not an absurdity. Special pleading would imply that something isn’t rationally justified on the grounds that no adequate reason for the exception can be offered. However, I have given a reason to make the exception - namely, the Designer is intelligent.
To knowledge and basic facts.
Please dont call the forest ugly because you see a few ugly trees. God accepts all of us exactly as we are and where we are. No matter how prayerful a life we have or how great an awareness of God’s love we have. If you want to be a better reflection of Christ try accepting all God’s children as he does, even the ones who can not directly benefit you on your spiritual journey. Here’s a great opportunity to practice the forgiving nature you were talking about. Hope this helped you.Odd?.. that one would need find a secular mini series of thoughts that would try to (name removed by moderator)ose something other than theory of science or openended thoughts that followers of God the Son and Holy Ghost that would need an explantion of earths created creatures or the attempted answers were we from monkeys/apes.
I am new to this fourm here on catholic answers and what was I expecting? Maybe greater things from posters on this site but…What have I seen by many looking to disprove, or lead away those only to believe in ones self or that maybe seeking to be a activist in at the very least causing doubt. While many who truly seek only encouragement to open up a greater Spiritual life.
Intelligent design while interesting as it is, I just do not understand its place on in bringing one to a greater life with God on a catholic/christian site. It doesn’t envoke a more prayful life or greater awareness that God is always loves you and desires you to be his now and forever. I expect an flurry or replys to my posting and should I be asked to leave by the MOD’S …I will comply! …and not post here on the fourms but it truly is unbelieveable and saddens me all the things of negative and disrespectful inclination of those posters that post only to attempt to disprove Gods greatness.
I guess I am looking for like minded catholics and christians who post here to help me develope into a more joyful, peaceful, loving, forgiving nature, and better reflection of the Lord I follow.
Dan aka 1WATCHER
Thanks for the reply.
First I feel I need to apologize. I’m definitely still a work in progress as well. In the proverbial forest I have a tendency to want to chop down the trees that upon first impression give me an uneasy feeling. I believe like you I do have this same sense of uneasiness when I encounter people with no desire for God. I struggle with openess and acceptance in this regard.