Religion/Spirituality The Intelligent Design/God/Theism Thread

[Berniewood Hogan]

1) There's an immediate fallacy from the beginning, which is that proponents of ID are proponents of Creationism, that is not the case, that's simply false,

It was proven in court that ID is simply creationism repackaged by a group of lawyers from a creationist think tank. A number of pro-ID people in this case were caught lying under oath and later admitted that they were "lying for the Lord."

Look at your own thread title, breh. Even you admitted it's about God and theism.

I've won every match in this feud and now the fans don't see you as a credible contender for the title, brother. Back down to the midcard you go. @Napoleon desperately needs a win, go feed him.

 

[blackzeus]

It was proven in court that ID is simply creationism repackaged by a group of lawyers from a creationist think tank. A number of pro-ID people in this case were caught lying under oath and later admitted that they were "lying for the Lord."

Look at your own thread title, breh. Even you admitted it's about God and theism.

I've won every match in this feud and now the fans don't see you as a credible contender for the title, brother. Back down to the midcard you go. @Napoleon desperately needs a win, go feed him.

1) No, my thread was to demystify and clarify, what is ID, what is God, and what is Theism, in response to the Atheist thread (of which many in that thread weren't even atheists ) I could have named the thread Evolution vs ID (which is what it really has been up until this point), and you would still find some linguistic way to discredit an argument based on empirical data.


2) As an example on the flip side, when Deion Sanders claimed God told him to not pay the mechanic, does that make it true, do you realize how ridiculous it sounds to put ID at fault for something ID had nothing to do with? So if the Jews claimed God told them to kill all the Hittites, is that God's fault? ID existed before Christianity, it's a fallacy to blame ID for the fact that Christians want to graft the ideas of ID into their religion.

3) The funny thing is that you see this as some sort of contest. If we were being technical, nobody's disproved the empirical data of ID, and if you check the last page, I quoted an evolutionist who explicitly said some of the cases he made against ID were fallacious, and as we gain more and more knowledge about the universe, both macro and micro, it's become more apparent what we assumed to be redundant or unnecessary is not the case, thus defeating the argument of "uninintelligent design" I too could claim I won with such article, as your own comrades are taking the L , but that's not the point, knowledge isn't a contest, it's an endeavor, the point of this thread is to enlighten the Coli on what is actually ID, what is actually God, what is actually Theism, and I probably should have added atheism and Christianity as well to the thread title.

 

[noon]

2) No, ID doesn't assume anything. You are assuming ID is assuming anything, for the hundredth time, ID simply states that the randomness being the genesis of the universe is statistically improbable due to empirical data, nothing more, nothing less. You can't assume anything without 100% proof, but you can assume the likelihood of something being true based on statistics, observation, and probability.

Doesn't ID assume there is a designer? Isn't that the whole point of ID? If you were just to say that randomness isn't possible then that's one thing. Asserting that everything was designed is the assumption, saying "I don't know" would be the default position surely? And that wouldn't be ID.

 

[blackzeus]

Doesn't ID assume there is a designer? Isn't that the whole point of ID? If you were just to say that randomness isn't possible then that's one thing. Asserting that everything was designed is the assumption, saying "I don't know" would be the default position surely? And that wouldn't be ID.

1) ID doesn't assume there is a designer. You must be thinking of creationism. ID states that the world as we know it was created by intelligent design due to empirical data. ID doesn't assume anything about how the intelligent design came to be. Again, it's reasonable to assume an intelligent design implies an intelligent designer, but this is not philosophy, this is science. We can't prove the existence of an Intelligent Designer, we can only surmise that it's a reasonable assumption. But that again has nothing to do with ID as a scientific theory.

2) The whole point of ID is to point out that the empirical data suggests intelligent design. By default that goes against evolutionary theory. ID is older than the evolutionary theory, older than Christianity, please stop confusing ID with Christianity and/or creationism, and/or an intellectual rebuttal of some sort to evolution. ID is a scientific theory that stands on scientific research stating that the universe as we know came to existence via intelligent design.

3) In regards to "I don't know", you would be right if there were multiple options. Unfortunately/fortunately depending on your view of math and logic, there isn't, there's only two choices, randomness and order. Agnosticism is a philosophical luxury not afforded in math.

4) Again, ID doesn't assert everything was designed, in that case ID would be a law, not a theory. ID states that the empirical data strongly suggests intelligent design, while of course randomness is still probable, the probability is so minute it's illogical to consider it as a realistic possibility. For the umpteenth time, it takes more faith to believe against ID, than to believe in it (actually, doesn't take much faith to believe in ID at all ), as impartial science based logicians I would think the majority of the HL forum would appreciate such information, but it seems to be having an opposite effect on the resident "intellectuals"

Last but not least, I highly suggest to anyone who wants to debate to please peruse the first few pages, a lot of these arguments are redundant, have been presented, and have already been refuted. Let's build intelligently

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

This is "Papi, I no Creationist" , the thread.

 

[blackzeus]

This is "Papi, I no Creationist" , the thread.

What's the matter, empirical data got your tongue, BROTHER?

 

[noon]

1) ID doesn't assume there is a designer. You must be thinking of creationism. ID states that the world as we know it was created by intelligent design due to empirical data. ID doesn't assume anything about how the intelligent design came to be. Again, it's reasonable to assume an intelligent design implies an intelligent designer, but this is not philosophy, this is science. We can't prove the existence of an Intelligent Designer, we can only surmise that it's a reasonable assumption. But that again has nothing to do with ID as a scientific theory.

2) The whole point of ID is to point out that the empirical data suggests intelligent design. By default that goes against evolutionary theory. ID is older than the evolutionary theory, older than Christianity, please stop confusing ID with Christianity and/or creationism, and/or an intellectual rebuttal of some sort to evolution. ID is a scientific theory that stands on scientific research stating that the universe as we know came to existence via intelligent design.

3) In regards to "I don't know", you would be right if there were multiple options. Unfortunately/fortunately depending on your view of math and logic, there isn't, there's only two choices, randomness and order. Agnosticism is a philosophical luxury not afforded in math.

4) Again, ID doesn't assert everything was designed, in that case ID would be a law, not a theory. ID states that the empirical data strongly suggests intelligent design, while of course randomness is still probable, the probability is so minute it's illogical to consider it as a realistic possibility. For the umpteenth time, it takes more faith to believe against ID, than to believe in it (actually, doesn't take much faith to believe in ID at all ), as impartial science based logicians I would think the majority of the HL forum would appreciate such information, but it seems to be having an opposite effect on the resident "intellectuals"

Last but not least, I highly suggest to anyone who wants to debate to please peruse the first few pages, a lot of these arguments are redundant, have been presented, and have already been refuted. Let's build intelligently

So, design but no designer then?

 

[blackzeus]

So, design but no designer then?

Well yes and no. In the strictest scientific sense, we can't assume the empirical data suggests a DESIGNER, we can only assume it suggests DESIGN. In a logical sense, a design implies a designer, but we are discussing ID as a scientific theory, not as a philosophy. It's important to make the distinction.


ID doesn't look to prove the existence of God, ID simply states based on this research, we've come to X conclusion about the genesis of the universe, nothing more, nothing less, that's why it's when people equate ID with Christianity and/or creationism

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

So, design but no designer then?

I think he's saying design but cause/source/designer is unknown/unprovable and taking it to that extension goes too far and strays from the core concept.

 

[blackzeus]

I think he's saying design but cause/source/designer is unknown/unprovable and taking it to that extension goes too far and strays from the core concept.

Yes, but more importantly, we're simply stating what the data suggests. To state that the data suggests the existence of a God-like being would be a fallacy, it only suggests the universe did not have a random genesis. To prove God exists, we need to define what constitutes existence, and then prove that God meets those requirements, that's a whole other branch of research that I'm not even sure is being pursued at this point.

 

[noon]

Well yes and no. In the strictest scientific sense, we can't assume the empirical data suggests a DESIGNER, we can only assume it suggests DESIGN. In a logical sense, a design implies a designer, but we are discussing ID as a scientific theory, not as a philosophy. It's important to make the distinction.


ID doesn't look to prove the existence of God, ID simply states based on this research, we've come to X conclusion about the genesis of the universe, nothing more, nothing less, that's why it's when people equate ID with Christianity and/or creationism

So design by what then? And if you can't say it's been designed by anything in particular then is it design?

 

[tmonster]

Had a chance to watch the first video breh (Damn near 1 hour! )

Couple things:

1) There's an immediate fallacy from the beginning, which is that proponents of ID are proponents of Creationism, that is not the case, that's simply false, many IDers are not even Christian!

2) If ID is based on empirical data, and is the statistically probable cause of the genesis of the universe, it has every right to be presented along with evolution as science.

3) There was a lot of diatribe about religion in the first video. ID isn't religion's answer to the evolutionary theory. ID existed BEFORE the evolutionary theory, just ask your founding fathers However, there are some interesting issues brought up in the debate, namely the purpose in one's life without the existence of a Christian God, which is an interesting topic for another thread.

4) It's wrong for religion to blend with science, and also wrong for evolutionists to claim ID = Christianity, the Christian faith needs to stand on its own two feet, and not try to claim ID as a scientific extension of the Christian faith. Religion /= science. If you believe in God, then believe in God, and the same for Jesus Christ, but if you're going to base yourself on the scientific principle, you are doing a disservice to science by claiming Christianity and science coexist, it's impossible, science says question everything, the Bible says believe everything God tells you. In their most fundamental respective principles science and religion are vastly different and incompatible.

I'll try to watch the other vids tonight, but they're long as f*ck man

given that you repeated it ad nauseaum regardless of presented facts, I now see this as true

 

[blackzeus]

So design by what then? And if you can't say it's been designed by anything in particular then is it design?

Are we approaching this on a scientific basis? If so, then simply ID hasn't gotten that far. Again, ID is not a search for proof of the existence of God, I think that's your hangup. Again, on a philosophical basis you're correct, the design implies a designer, but as scientists we can't say that, at least not at this time. What we can say is that it is statistically impossible that randomness is the genesis of the universe.

EDIT: Statistically improbable, not statistically impossible

 

[noon]

Are we approaching this on a scientific basis? If so, then simply ID hasn't gotten that far. Again, ID is not a search for proof of the existence of God, I think that's your hangup. Again, on a philosophical basis you're correct, the design implies a designer, but as scientists we can't say that, at least not at this time. What we can say is that it is statistically impossible that randomness is the genesis of the universe.

EDIT: Statistically improbable, not statistically impossible

The only basis I'm approaching this on is that you say there are no assumptions in ID but why is it called Intelligent Design when there's no designer? Are you saying there's no designer? If you're saying there may be a designer then isn't that an assumption?

Is there another option I've missed:

There is no designer.
There may be a designer.
There is a designer.

What camp does ID fall into?

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

The only basis I'm approaching this on is that you say there are no assumptions in ID but why is it called Intelligent Design when there's no designer? Are you saying there's no designer? If you're saying there may be a designer then isn't that an assumption?

Is there another option I've missed:

There is no designer.
There may be a designer.
There is a designer.

What camp does ID fall into?

I agree with this post. I said earlier in here that perhaps this form of ID should be labeled something else. For me, itd be "there may be a designer". (saying otherwise doesnt match the same burden of believability to me)