Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

There is intelligent design.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    Well that would be true if that god is a non existent entity.
    That doesn't make any sense at all. You can't say that non-existence has no meaning when applied to God while claiming god is a non-existent entity.
    I'm not here anymore.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      I believe you had posted this.
      In no way related to human engineering or design. You chose to see it that way even though I did say "some" and "or a substitute."
      Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        This is ok from a sound theist perspective, but the arguments using anthropomorphic human concepts of intelligent design and engineering, like Plantinga's are bogus, and unscientific.

        See Dover Trial.
        ...whereby Judge John E. Jones III issued the decision in the case and in his conclusion he wrote:

        "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. [...]

        The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy...”
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          ...whereby Judge John E. Jones III issued the decision in the case and in his conclusion he wrote:

          "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. [...]

          The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy...”
          Correct! There is no justification for ID in science as Plantinga asserts.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-21-2014, 11:38 AM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            I believe God Created all of existence, but I acknowledge that this is a belief. The concept of Intelligent Design is awkward and anthropomorphic. God is a Creator, not an engineer, nor a designer.

            There is no objective evidence nor falsifiable hypothesis nor theory that could objectively demonstrate 'Intelligent Design.'

            The existence of a Source some call God(s) can neither be proved nor disproved, therefore the claim that there is an 'Intelligent Designer,' can neither be proved nor disproved. These matters remain a subject of one's belief and faith.
            Law of biogenesis : life only comes from life.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Zxcv Bnm View Post
              Law of biogenesis : life only comes from life.
              Then when it arrives, what does it do? Remain in stasis?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Zxcv Bnm View Post
                Law of biogenesis : life only comes from life.
                It's not a law just religious apologists say it is.

                [Edit] It's not a law just because religious apologists say it is.
                Last edited by Doug Shaver; 05-01-2014, 05:26 AM. Reason: Restore omitted word.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  I believe God Created all of existence, but I acknowledge that this is a belief.
                  I think it is better to think of God in terms of His practical benefits and disadvantages for the believer and non-believer. These are framed by a vague idea of what God is and what His achievements are but none of those things can be proved and ultimately, they are not particularly interesting.

                  For belief, it is sufficient to be able to name your God or say that His name is so sacred that it cannot be uttered. By the simple act of naming the mystery, you invent a relationship with it. By the doctrines you are taught as a child you have a relationship with the rest of creation and you either like it or you don’t.

                  Powerful doctrines like Christianity and Islam place the believer in a bubble that tends to separate them from reality (perhaps the ultimate bubble that we wish to enter) but that point of view is only apparent to the outsider. However, it is fortunate that because there are many different contradictory doctrines it is always possible for a believer to experience non-belief and therefore see what a bubble looks like from the outside – a Christian looking at some aspect of Islam, for example. Understanding your God is exactly like understanding the geometry of your own personal and self constructed bubble. In this sort of discussion, people are comparing notes about the geometry of the bubble they are in.

                  I use “bubble” instead of the more often used “world-view”, because I think the view from within the bubble is restricted and that is why you get debates about ID, evolution, abiogenesis, the age of the earth, the meaning of scripture and the like. The arguments are a sort of turbulence at the edge of the personal bubble. The ultimate bubble of the Universe itself is very still and crystal clear and there is no god in it.
                  Last edited by firstfloor; 05-01-2014, 04:24 AM.
                  “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                  “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                  “not all there” - you know who you are

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by firstfloor
                    I use “bubble” instead of the more often used “world-view”, because I think the view from within the bubble is restricted and that is why you get debates about ID, evolution, abiogenesis, the age of the earth, the meaning of scripture and the like. The arguments are a sort of turbulence at the edge of the personal bubble. The ultimate bubble of the Universe itself is very still and crystal clear and there is no god in it.
                    I appreciate your willingness to fall back on bare assertion as a support to your arguments, but I think the Muslims do that better than you, at least since al-Ghazali.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Zxcv Bnm View Post
                      Law of biogenesis : life only comes from life.
                      ????? There is no law of biogenesis in science. Are you making this up?!?!?!?
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                        It's not a law just religious apologists say it is.

                        [Edit] It's not a law just because religious apologists say it is.
                        This is a first for me. I have never heard about this so called 'Law.'
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                          I think it is better to think of God in terms of His practical benefits and disadvantages for the believer and non-believer. These are framed by a vague idea of what God is and what His achievements are but none of those things can be proved and ultimately, they are not particularly interesting.

                          For belief, it is sufficient to be able to name your God or say that His name is so sacred that it cannot be uttered. By the simple act of naming the mystery, you invent a relationship with it. By the doctrines you are taught as a child you have a relationship with the rest of creation and you either like it or you don’t.

                          Powerful doctrines like Christianity and Islam place the believer in a bubble that tends to separate them from reality (perhaps the ultimate bubble that we wish to enter) but that point of view is only apparent to the outsider. However, it is fortunate that because there are many different contradictory doctrines it is always possible for a believer to experience non-belief and therefore see what a bubble looks like from the outside – a Christian looking at some aspect of Islam, for example. Understanding your God is exactly like understanding the geometry of your own personal and self constructed bubble. In this sort of discussion, people are comparing notes about the geometry of the bubble they are in.

                          I use “bubble” instead of the more often used “world-view”, because I think the view from within the bubble is restricted and that is why you get debates about ID, evolution, abiogenesis, the age of the earth, the meaning of scripture and the like. The arguments are a sort of turbulence at the edge of the personal bubble. The ultimate bubble of the Universe itself is very still and crystal clear and there is no god in it.
                          This will take more thought. I prefer to view God more simply as the 'Source' some call God(s).
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            This is a first for me. I have never heard about this so called 'Law.'
                            I have, but not very often, and only from apologists attempting to discredit evolution. Perhaps most anti-evolutionists have gotten the word that they'll end up looking silly if they try to use it.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              ????? There is no law of biogenesis in science. Are you making this up?!?!?!?
                              Of course there is a law of biogenesis, just because its never referenced by evolutionary scientists does not mean it does not exist. Because in our universe life is only observed to come from life, and never do we observe evidence to the contrary, this proves its a law until proven otherwise. Of course this does not mean it will never be broken, I personally believe in the abiogenesis of God, but not in our space time continuum

                              The problem is, the foundation of evolutionary science has established its self on the belief this law has been violated (at least once) in the universe, and without this law of biogenesis being violated there can not be an origins of life hypothesis without intelligent design. Because we have a true dichotomy here, either life in the universe came into existence by biogenesis (another sentient life) or it came into existence by abiogenesis (non-sentient matter), no third hypothesis can possibly exist. So if evolutionary science categorically rejects one side of a dichotomy, they have no choice but to accept the only other alternative, even if there is an immutable law that states otherwise

                              Atheistic evolutionary science has painted its self into a theoretical corner that they can't possibly get out of without getting their "feet" all sticky and wet

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                                Of course there is a law of biogenesis,
                                Not just because evangelical apologists say so, there isn't.

                                Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                                just because its never referenced by evolutionary scientists does not mean it does not exist.
                                It's not a scientific law if scientists don't use it.

                                Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                                Because in our universe life is only observed to come from life
                                Oh, you've checked the entire universe, have you?

                                Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                                never do we observe evidence to the contrary, this proves its a law until proven otherwise.
                                Nope, that's not how science works.

                                Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                                The problem is, the foundation of evolutionary science has established its self on the belief this law has been violated (at least once)
                                No, that is not the foundation of evolutionary theory.

                                Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                                without this law of biogenesis being violated there can not be an origins of life hypothesis without intelligent design.
                                So says your dogma. Not so says science.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, 01-18-2023, 11:09 PM
                                202 responses
                                1,069 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by eider, 01-17-2023, 02:14 AM
                                176 responses
                                720 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by eider, 01-13-2023, 04:39 AM
                                424 responses
                                1,710 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 01-07-2023, 01:32 PM
                                284 responses
                                1,400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-05-2023, 09:25 AM
                                57 responses
                                414 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X