Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-02-2013, 08:47 AM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2013 10:32 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
There is no evidence that consciousness exists apart from physical molecular systems at this point, no matter how loud, or rudely, or often, someone asserts it. There are also two other problems.
a. The universe has been proven to be non-intuitive with respect to what human brains perceive to be logical, therefore any assetion without evidence is highly suspect, and is unreliable. Therefore Kalam, the teleological, Aristotle's proofs, Aquinas' proofs, Anselm's proofs, and all the other logic based arguments are unreliable. Evidence is the inly reliable indicator.
b. Consciousness as we know it, requires time as a background dimension, as it is a process. There is no evidence at this point that (space)time exists apart from this universe. Any assertion about what may or may not exist apart from this universe, especially PROCESSES, (consciousness), which require time, are premature, (as properties of the gods which would of necessity exist apart from this universe).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
09-02-2013, 12:54 PM
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(08-02-2013 09:03 PM)Egor Wrote:  The traditional arguments for the existence of God do nothing to define what God is, rather they show simply that there is a Supreme Being as opposed to there being no Supreme Being. In the case of the teleological argument (or argument from design), we also see that the Supreme Being must be a conscious entity, because only a conscious entity can "order" something.

You're right. The teleological argument doesn't prove the Christian God, but rather is an attempt to prove "a" god. However, we've run into so many Christians who use this argument to defend their God that it's hardly a straw man. Outside of the bible, there's simply no way to defend the existence of God specifically, and the problem with using the bible as a defense is that the Christian must agree to standards of evidence that he would not allow for the Qur'an or another holy book. So Christians often use general arguments for the existence of any god and then hope to convince you to just accept that it's their God by default.

However, your assertion than "only a conscious entity can order something" is an argument from ignorance. The only positive evidence you can present for design coming from a Supreme Being is to beg the question by assuming that a Supreme Being designs things. Nor can you present negative evidence because, even if we had no observations of the appearance of design or order coming from chaos (and we do), then the best you could say is that we haven't observed it "yet" (even though we have).

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Starcrash's post
09-02-2013, 01:29 PM
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(09-02-2013 12:54 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(08-02-2013 09:03 PM)Egor Wrote:  The traditional arguments for the existence of God do nothing to define what God is, rather they show simply that there is a Supreme Being as opposed to there being no Supreme Being. In the case of the teleological argument (or argument from design), we also see that the Supreme Being must be a conscious entity, because only a conscious entity can "order" something.

You're right. The teleological argument doesn't prove the Christian God, but rather is an attempt to prove "a" god. However, we've run into so many Christians who use this argument to defend their God that it's hardly a straw man. Outside of the bible, there's simply no way to defend the existence of God specifically, and the problem with using the bible as a defense is that the Christian must agree to standards of evidence that he would not allow for the Qur'an or another holy book. So Christians often use general arguments for the existence of any god and then hope to convince you to just accept that it's their God by default.

However, your assertion than "only a conscious entity can order something" is an argument from ignorance. The only positive evidence you can present for design coming from a Supreme Being is to beg the question by assuming that a Supreme Being designs things. Nor can you present negative evidence because, even if we had no observations of the appearance of design or order coming from chaos (and we do), then the best you could say is that we haven't observed it "yet" (even though we have).

Actually it's patently false. Computers "order things" all day every day, and we know from Chaos Theory that order arises spontaneously, (the Mandelbrot set).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
09-02-2013, 01:36 PM
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(09-02-2013 01:29 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(09-02-2013 12:54 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  However, your assertion than "only a conscious entity can order something" is an argument from ignorance. The only positive evidence you can present for design coming from a Supreme Being is to beg the question by assuming that a Supreme Being designs things. Nor can you present negative evidence because, even if we had no observations of the appearance of design or order coming from chaos (and we do), then the best you could say is that we haven't observed it "yet" (even though we have).

Actually it's patently false. Computers "order things" all day every day, and we know from Chaos Theory that order arises spontaneously, (the Mandelbrot set).

I know. Read my argument a little closer -- the parentheses declare the exact same thing that you have. I was actually thinking about the Klerksdorp Spheres, but your examples are good, too.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
09-02-2013, 03:13 PM
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(08-02-2013 06:54 PM)TheLastEnemy Wrote:  Even if it turned out that a deity or deities of some sort were responsible for the creation of earth or the univerese or whatever, it still would not prove THEIR deity is the correct one, or even if the creator being still existed, this arguement is completely useless when attempting to prove a particular religion. " *Insert something here*, is too complex to have come into being by accident, therfore YHWH", is both annoying and stupid.
A "designed universe" could just as easily be the creation of a more advanced civilization. We could be in a parallel universe created by an alien species or we could be a computer simulation created by an advance human society. We would have to discover a "fingerprint" and work from there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unholy Fool's post
09-02-2013, 06:30 PM
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(09-02-2013 03:13 PM)Unholy Fool Wrote:  
(08-02-2013 06:54 PM)TheLastEnemy Wrote:  Even if it turned out that a deity or deities of some sort were responsible for the creation of earth or the univerese or whatever, it still would not prove THEIR deity is the correct one, or even if the creator being still existed, this arguement is completely useless when attempting to prove a particular religion. " *Insert something here*, is too complex to have come into being by accident, therfore YHWH", is both annoying and stupid.
A "designed universe" could just as easily be the creation of a more advanced civilization. We could be in a parallel universe created by an alien species or we could be a computer simulation created by an advance human society. We would have to discover a "fingerprint" and work from there.
Exactly. The First Cause, (or KCA) argument does not lead to theXtian god, as if it were to be omnipotent it could have created a set of universe making machines, who could do the same thing, 10 orders removed.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
09-02-2013, 07:36 PM
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(09-02-2013 03:13 PM)Unholy Fool Wrote:  
(08-02-2013 06:54 PM)TheLastEnemy Wrote:  Even if it turned out that a deity or deities of some sort were responsible for the creation of earth or the univerese or whatever, it still would not prove THEIR deity is the correct one, or even if the creator being still existed, this arguement is completely useless when attempting to prove a particular religion. " *Insert something here*, is too complex to have come into being by accident, therfore YHWH", is both annoying and stupid.
A "designed universe" could just as easily be the creation of a more advanced civilization. We could be in a parallel universe created by an alien species or we could be a computer simulation created by an advance human society. We would have to discover a "fingerprint" and work from there.
The problem with finding a "fingerprint" is that the universe expanded, and it's hard to say that would not have resulted in destruction of this fingerprint.

I still like the deist position that by creating the universe, the inflation killed the being that made it.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
10-02-2013, 10:38 AM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2013 10:42 AM by Adenosis.)
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(09-02-2013 07:36 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  I still like the deist position that by creating the universe, the inflation killed the being that made it.
God couldn't withstand the expansion of his own creation? Tongue Seems more likely than the god of the bible. More likely as in still a 6.8 on the Dawkins scale of certainty.

On point, the argument from design is heavily flawed much like any other argument we will come across in favour of the existence of god. Theists always imply that it is evidence of their specific god, which is of course the result of looking at the world through a key hole. They assume either my god exists or no god exists. It's funny how they can so easily throw away other god claims while taking theirs completely seriously. For all we know Satan could be the creator of the universe, and God's the evil step brother that tries to fuck shit up, so he inspires the creation of a book that promotes slavery, murder and blind faith among other things. Satan being the one that gave us our senses to explore our world using rational thought and logic. Atheists tend to (I say tend because some are atheists not because of rational thought but only because of the absence of indoctrination) open the door and look through that, as opposed to the keyhole. We then see that there are a infinite amount of gods you could create, and many of the would be unfalsifiable. The point is, it appears impossible to know at this time, and so picking a team would be irrational. I am certain the earth will be a much more pleasant place when people start understanding the significance of the burden of proof, it's there for a reason.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2013, 12:56 PM
 
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(09-02-2013 12:54 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  You're right. The teleological argument doesn't prove the Christian God, but rather is an attempt to prove "a" god. However, we've run into so many Christians who use this argument to defend their God that it's hardly a straw man. Outside of the bible, there's simply no way to defend the existence of God specifically, and the problem with using the bible as a defense is that the Christian must agree to standards of evidence that he would not allow for the Qur'an or another holy book. So Christians often use general arguments for the existence of any god and then hope to convince you to just accept that it's their God by default.

Right. And when I argue for the existence of God, I always start with a definition (i.e., God is the fundamental monistic consciousness). I don't argue for "the god of the bible" because, a) I use the Veridican Gospel of Jesus Christ, not the Holy Bible as my authorized scripture, b) there are at least three different types of "Gods" described in the Bible. The one in the Garden of Eden is obviously polytheistic, the one Moses encounters is a monotheistic lawgiver, and then Jesus describes another as a monistic Father. Oh, and then there is the vengful kind of loner God that Noah encounters.

So, the Bible can't be used for any logical philosophical debate on the existence of God, in my opinion. Obviously, I believe God is most accurately described through Veridicanism. The difference between me and other Christians, is that I define what God is and then argue logically for His necessity. Or at least this is what will occur in the near future.

Quote:However, your assertion than "only a conscious entity can order something" is an argument from ignorance. The only positive evidence you can present for design coming from a Supreme Being is to beg the question by assuming that a Supreme Being designs things. Nor can you present negative evidence because, even if we had no observations of the appearance of design or order coming from chaos (and we do), then the best you could say is that we haven't observed it "yet" (even though we have).

It's not an argument from ignorance, but from necessity. Order cannot come from chaos (true chaos that is, which is the underlying structure of the universe if there is no God). To think that order can spontaneously arise from chaos is absurd. The only way to believe that is to change the accepted definition of order or chaos in order to make a theory stick.

We see around us "order" that we did not create. So we use inductive reasoning to reach a conclusion that God exists and must be able to order things. But to order something requires will and anything with will must have consciousness.

Could all of this be untrue? Yes. There could be no God; my consciousness could be an illusion (even though that's a contradiction); there might be no order in the universe at all but only chaos, and in this one little whim of chaos the world has been born and brought only accidently into existence.

So, how to tip the balance? We have to look at other things: the other arguments for the existence of God, the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, the existence of psi phenomena and non-neurologic consciousness, the mysteries of quantum mechanics, and even the very nature of the workings of our mind. When all of these things are examined in addition to the above, the ability to remain atheistic becomes a kind of willful delusion. In the face of all the evidence and logic, for one to remain an atheist leaves only one conclusion: that person needs to be an atheist for alterior reasons (e.g., a homosexual who feels guilt over their sexuality may choose to be atheist in order to reconcile their sinful life, or what they consider is a sinful life).
Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2013, 09:19 PM
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
^ I read this post. It wasn't worth it. Save your time for something more substantial people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like hedgehog648's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: