If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-06-2015, 10:08 AM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 09:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-06-2015 08:28 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Step 1) prove the designer exists

Step 2) find evidence of design from the designer that logically connects said evidence to said designer.


All you're saying here is, that in order for you to conclude that something is designed the designer must be proven to exists, and that particular design is connect to this particular designer.

But of course you likely wouldn't ask this of someone inferring their house was robbed, that he would have to:

Step 1.) Prove the robber exists

Step 2.) connect the robbery to this particular robber.

None of these are steps required to infer a robbery.

No. We know that robbers exist and that is sufficient.

Quote:Imagine a man who lives in an isolated area, after some global catastrophe, in which he is led to believe he is the last remaining survivor. He comes home one day to find that a bunch of his items are missing. He concludes that he has been robbed. By concluding that he had been robbed, he recognizes that there must be others around, capable of robbing him.

Notice none of your required steps are present.

He knows that people have existed and may still. You provide yet another bad example.

Quote:He neither has to prove the robber exists, to infer a robbery. Nor does he have to connect a particular robber to this particular robbery either to draw this inference.

You keep strawmanning this. We don't need to know that a particular robber exists, just at least one.

Quote:The steps your propose are just your own personal requirements. It's like a man who requires a birth certificate, photographs, or videos to conclude that any historical person has ever existed.

No, it isn't.

Quote:Your inability to recognize this, a point made several times to you already, is part of the problem here. You accuse me of misunderstanding you, while at the same time not understanding this.

I don't know if you misunderstand, but you are most certainly misrepresenting the argument.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2015, 10:09 AM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 09:59 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-06-2015 09:43 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  By your logic (not needing to demonstrate the plausibility of a mechanism in order to use it for explanation of "evidence" believed to derive from it), the surface of the Earth is as likely to move because of the existence of molemen who live in the deep Earth and use a series of conveyor belts to move the plates of the Earth as it is to being driven by convection of heat and the effects of ridge push and slab pull.

Not really. Why would this movement, even if it was a product of intentionality, be credited to molemen who live deep in the earth? There's no particular relationship between the meaning of molmen, or creatures who lived deep in the earth, and the supposed intentional movement of the plates of the earth.

Here, I made you an infographic.


"There's no particular relationship between the meaning of molmen, or creatures who lived deep in the earth, and the supposed intentional movement of the plates of the earth."

I don't suppose the irony of a theist saying this is something you are aware of? Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2015, 10:37 AM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 09:55 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-06-2015 09:28 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I'll give him one better.

Let's assume that an intelligent designer exists. How did it organize matter in such a way to produce conscious, self aware creatures? "God works in mysterious ways." has absolutely zero explanatory or predictive power.

Inferring intentionality has the same explanatory capacity as claiming it was a fluke.

Except the natural sciences don't claim it was a fluke. Only that intentionality is unnecessary and superfluous. There are obviously processes taking place which resulted in our current state which the natural sciences try to elucidate, understand and even recreate. What is intentional is science. What it studies may (the engineering and social sciences for example) or may not (the natural sciences) be.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
16-06-2015, 10:40 AM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 10:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  He knows that people have existed and may still. You provide yet another bad example.

Quote:He neither has to prove the robber exists, to infer a robbery. Nor does he have to connect a particular robber to this particular robbery either to draw this inference.

You keep strawmanning this. We don't need to know that a particular robber exists, just at least one.

If this reasoning held true, it would require that an inference on intention, would have to be ascribed to human agents. If we don't ascribe it to human agents, we can't infer intention.

This doesn't particularly follow though. Just like in the robbery example, if it was later discovered that it was a non-human agent, or a ghost, or some supernatural creature that robbed me, this doesn't mean that I was wrong about being robbed. The exact who (by exact I mean human or not), is not required for the inference.

Quote:
Quote:The steps your propose are just your own personal requirements. It's like a man who requires a birth certificate, photographs, or videos to conclude that any historical person has ever existed.

No, it isn't.

Yes, they are. If they're not your own personal requirements, whose are they then?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2015, 10:53 AM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 10:37 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Except the natural sciences don't claim it was a fluke. Only that intentionality is unnecessary and superfluous.

No, science doesn't even say that. Individual scientist might, particularly ones that accept ontological naturalism, but science doesn't. Going back to the example of a man who won the lottery three times straight, you can provide an explanation that doesn't require intentionality, that the winning recipient was a product of some astronomical odds, a fluke, but this doesn't deem explanations or the view that it was intentional as unnecessary of superfluous.

It is interesting that you and others here quibble over the concept of a fluke. I'm never too sure why that is. What's wrong with acknowledging that we are a fluke? Why does this notion bother you? You don't like to believe we were intentional, but you don't like to believe we are a mere fluke of nature either. I think there something operating there that's a little more subconscious than we might assume.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2015, 10:54 AM
If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 10:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-06-2015 10:37 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Except the natural sciences don't claim it was a fluke. Only that intentionality is unnecessary and superfluous.

No, science doesn't even say that. Individual scientist might, particularly ones that accept ontological naturalism, but science doesn't. Going back to the example of a man who won the lottery three times straight, you can provide an explanation that doesn't require intentionality, that the winning recipient was a product of some astronomical odds, a fluke, but this doesn't deem explanations or the view that it was intentional as unnecessary of superfluous.

It is interesting that you and others here quibble over the concept of a fluke. I'm never too sure why that is. What's wrong with acknowledging that we are a fluke? Why does this notion bother you? You don't like to believe we were intentional, but you don't like to believe we are a mere fluke of nature either. I think there something operating there that's a little more subconscious than we might assume.

Because you don't understand what "random" means. Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
16-06-2015, 10:59 AM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 10:09 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
Quote:"There's no particular relationship between the meaning of molmen, or creatures who lived deep in the earth, and the supposed intentional movement of the plates of the earth."

I don't suppose the irony of a theist saying this is something you are aware of? Drinking Beverage

No, explain the irony to me. Let me guess, that's there no relationship between the thing being attributed to intentional forces, and the particular God in question?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2015, 11:01 AM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 10:59 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-06-2015 10:09 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I don't suppose the irony of a theist saying this is something you are aware of? Drinking Beverage

No, explain the irony to me. Let me guess, that's there no relationship between the thing being attributed to intentional forces, and the particular God in question?

And any god in question given that there has never been a reason (a good, logical one based on actual evidence) to believe in one when explanations invoking nature are sufficient to explain reality.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2015, 11:13 AM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 10:54 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Because you don't understand what "random" means. Drinking Beverage

fluke
noun
unlikely chance occurrence, especially a surprising piece of luck.
"their triumph was no fluke"
synonyms: chance, coincidence, accident

An unexpected benefit or advantage resulting from the uncertain course of events <the discovery of oil on their property was just an amazing fluke>

Antonyms for fluke: Design; Plan; Certain

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/fluke

https://www.google.com/search?client=saf...8&oe=UTF-8

http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/fluke
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2015, 11:17 AM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 11:13 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-06-2015 10:54 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Because you don't understand what "random" means. Drinking Beverage

fluke
noun
unlikely chance occurrence, especially a surprising piece of luck.
"their triumph was no fluke"
synonyms: chance, coincidence, accident

An unexpected benefit or advantage resulting from the uncertain course of events <the discovery of oil on their property was just an amazing fluke>

Antonyms for fluke: Design; Plan; Certain

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/fluke

https://www.google.com/search?client=saf...8&oe=UTF-8

http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/fluke

Ooooh look...a definition.

I didn't say you couldn't look up a definition, but like most theists, you seem to assume that fluke or luck or random, means "without cause"

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: