Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@TheJackal,

Jackal, It's called 'NATURE.' Simple, really.

@Frank Apisa,

While some things can be designed to argue that all things are designed inevitably leads to something must exist that wasn't designed.

The only outcome of that logic is that something can exist without being designed. Therefore there is no reason to insert a designer into a process unless there is clear evidence of that designer.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

While some things can be designed to argue that all things are designed inevitably leads to something must exist that wasn't designed.

The only outcome of that logic is that something can exist without being designed. Therefore there is no reason to insert a designer into a process unless there is clear evidence of that designer.

Not so in the case of the ultimate designer, Parados...IF there is an ultimate designer. My guess is there will never be "clear evidence" of a GOD...but that does not mean a GOD does not exist...and using the lack of clear evidence as a reason not to speculate on it (insert a designer into the process) makes no sense, in my opinion.

A creating GOD is not nearly as absurd a notion as some of the people here want to suggest.

Unless you can reasonably assert "there is no possibility of a GOD"...then there is the possibility. Any assertions about the probability of the existence of a GOD...or it counterpart, that a GOD does not exist...

...is self serving. Doing either is nothing but gratuitous nonsense.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Nature..., Is I would say an aspect of existence.. Yes we can say Existence is the sum total of Nature. I think however it is best to say either Reality or Existence as there is little left to confusion regarding the context. We can simply say "E" as the symbol of "E"xistence and the origin and "E"ssence of "E"verything.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

If Existence is not GOD, then what of existence is?

This is a paradox in which demonstrates the absurdity of the concept of god in several ways..

1. Existence is defined as the essence, mode, and totality of all that exists. Thus if you say Existence is god, then by definition and consequence the concept becomes moot and meaningless as everything and everyone would be GOD. The latter holds true when argued Existence is not god, and therefore since Existence is all that exists, there can be no god.

2. Existence can't literally be created for that any creator would require it. This alone pretty much kills the concept.

3. Existence simply exists without creation due that Non-existence by definition could never actually exist.. Synonymous non-existence is with "Nothing", and if nothing existed, not even nothing would exist. Self-refuting concepts are wrong by the nature of their premises, and so therefore Existence does not, did not, and could not ever have had a "Creator".. And this literally means that Existence itself is Causality, a self-generating system from itself to which all things that have cause are products of. This includes cognition and any products there of.

4. Since Existence is Causality, evolution is fact, and all states of change in the system, regardless of how small or great, demonstrate this very fact that extends right into the diversity of life.

5. Not a single person here would be able to explain to me Causality, origins, life, essence of being, cognitive systems, consciousness, meaning, purpose, mode, state, function, or anything at all without "EXISTENCE" ..

Thus the Answer is which people over the ages have fought and killed each other to know has been in plain view the entire time, and it's irrelevant if we fully understand it, or the nature of it. After all, that is what science is for.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I THINK I consider this argument of yours to be essentially nonsense...but I am willing simply to characterize it as wrong.

Then you should have no problem explaining that without existence. Do share how it is nonsense to state that Existence is the source origin, essence, mode, and totality of all that exists.. Can you for example demonstrate a functioning cognitive system without Existence? Can you without the inertia and processing of information while knowing a cognitive system depends greatly on what is "system feedback".. ? If you think Cognitive systems are so simple, then you ought not have any difficulty building one.. Look, I am not sure how much time you have spent dabbling into cognitive systems theory, but I can assure you there isn't a conscious state in which is without cause or need of existence. So let me deposit a question:

What is god without existence?

Quote:

Unfortunately, you needlessly complicate your arguments with unnecessary words and comments...so it is difficult to deal with your arguments.

I need but 1 word... "Existence"

Quote:

If you are saying there is no possibility of intelligent design...just say it.

My posted statement to which you quoted from never made any argument suggesting this.., and I quote myself:

Quote:

not in the context that things can't be intelligently designed, but in the context that if one's argument is that complex systems, structures, worlds, or organisms need an Intelligent designer, it must conclude itself self-refuting or deal with infinite regress, or infinite egress.

Read that carefully... Hence intelligence and intelligently designed things exist, so I fail to see where you believe I was suggesting the latter. I think you missed the point of my statement, and the reason why that even intelligence is not without cause as you must first have a Conscious frame of awareness. And to have that, you must first have a system (existence), system feedback, the inertia of information, complex sensory systems, the processing of information, and the development of cognitive systems and dynamics before you can have the potential of the emergence of a conscious frame of reference, and therefore the emergence of intelligence. Complexity does not begin from the top down, it is always structured from the bottom up. Thus only when the higher order of complex is reached, or has emerged can you begin to have some form of top down influence and interaction in a system.

Yes, we know very well that non-conscious states are far less complex than conscious states. So you cannot argue complexity requires a designer in general without invoking a self-refutation. This is a common argument of Creationists, and most Creationist arguments are self-refuting.

So to point.., none of this invalidates the idea of an intelligence involved in the Big Bang, it only means that no conscious being can truly ever represent the answer to "origins" in the most broad context. Only Existence itself can answer or be the answer to that, and I need not contemplate the concept of GOD since existence itself is the Origin, cause, and essences of everything. I am not being obtuse in telling you that it is Existence to which determines what is, was, or what will ever become. It's the one evidence based assumption I can place the most confidence in.

0 Replies

The clear answer is it's religion.

0 Replies

@TheJackal,

TheJackal wrote:

If Existence is not GOD, then what of existence is?

Beats the hell out of me. Are you saying you know?

Quote:

This is a paradox in which demonstrates the absurdity of the concept of god in several ways..

1. Existence is defined as the essence, mode, and totality of all that exists. Thus if you say Existence is god, then by definition and consequence the concept becomes moot and meaningless as everything and everyone would be GOD. The latter holds true when argued Existence is not god, and therefore since Existence is all that exists, there can be no god.

Then don't say, "thus existence is god."

Quote:

2. Existence can't literally be created for that any creator would require it. This alone pretty much kills the concept.

3. Existence simply exists without creation due that Non-existence by definition could never actually exist.. Synonymous non-existence is with "Nothing", and if nothing existed, not even nothing would exist. Self-refuting concepts are wrong by the nature of their premises, and so therefore Existence does not, did not, and could not ever have had a "Creator".. And this literally means that Existence itself is Causality, a self-generating system from itself to which all things that have cause are products of. This includes cognition and any products there of.

4. Since Existence is Causality, evolution is fact, and all states of change in the system, regardless of how small or great, demonstrate this very fact that extends right into the diversity of life.

5. Not a single person here would be able to explain to me Causality, origins, life, essence of being, cognitive systems, consciousness, meaning, purpose, mode, state, function, or anything at all without "EXISTENCE" ..

Thus the Answer is which people over the ages have fought and killed each other to know has been in plain view the entire time, and it's irrelevant if we fully understand it, or the nature of it. After all, that is what science is for.

I have no idea if there is a GOD or not.

You seem to be saying that you do KNOW there is no GOD.

You are attempting to prove that you can logically arrive at "there is no GOD" with arguments that are almost universally begging the question.

C'mon. You can do better.

Take the most important single element of your argument (and only the one single element)...and let's see if we can establish that...rather than gratuitously beg the question of it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Who designed the ultimate designer? You are simply arbitrarily assigning a point at which a designer is no longer needed. There is no evidence to suggest that point can't be long before your "ultimate designer".

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Who designed the ultimate designer?

I have NO idea if there is an ultimate designer, Parados...and have said that innumerable times. So how could I know who designed the ultimate designer?

Quote:

You are simply arbitrarily assigning a point at which a designer is no longer needed.

I am doing no such thing. I am merely pointing out that there is the possibility of a GOD. If you disagree...if you are asserting there is no possibility of a GOD...let's talk about it.

Quote:

There is no evidence to suggest that point can't be long before your "ultimate designer".

We are in agreement there. There definitely is no evidence to suggest that point can't long before an ultimate designer.

However, there also is no evidence to suggest that an ultimate designer cannot exist. And that is all I am saying.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Anything is possible but a designer is not necessary and is a logical dead end in science and logic.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Anything is possible but a designer is not necessary

Gnats are not necessary. But they exist.

Quote:

...and is a logical dead end in science and logic.

So disregard science and logic when considering Gods.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

parados wrote:

Anything is possible but a designer is not necessary

Gnats are not necessary. But they exist.

Quote:
...and is a logical dead end in science and logic.

So disregard science and logic when considering Gods.

Medieval theologians held that God can override the demands of philosophical logic. This separates "divinely revealed truth" from "philosophical truth." For those who reject divine revelation, philosophical logic is the only method to be used in evaluating the idea of intelligent design.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

parados wrote:

Anything is possible but a designer is not necessary

Gnats are not necessary. But they exist.

Quote:
...and is a logical dead end in science and logic.

So disregard science and logic when considering Gods.

Medieval theologians held that God can override the demands of philosophical logic. This separates "divinely revealed truth" from "philosophical truth." For those who reject divine revelation, philosophical logic is the only method to be used in evaluating the idea of intelligent design.

Wandel, my comments were directed at Parados' comment, "Anything is possible but a designer is not necessary and is a logical dead end in science and logic."

He wants to assert there can be no GOD because a) there is no need for one (illogical in itself)...and b) logic and science consider the notion to be a dead end.

All that is illogical.

There may be a GOD...there may be no gods. I do not know...and I suspect neither does anyone else in A2K.

That is all I am saying...other than the arguments given that there cannot be a GOD so far...fall very short.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

We have evidence of gnats.

There are billions and billions of other creatures that don't exist but possibly could. There is no need to argue for all of them since there is no evidence of them. The same is true of an ultimate designer. There is no evidence and there is no need. Why do you only argue about a designer when you could be arguing about all that was "designed" and wasn't?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

He wants to assert there can be no GOD because a) there is no need for one (illogical in itself)...and b) logic and science consider the notion to be a dead end.

I asserted no such thing. In fact I said the exact opposite. Perhaps you should stop inserting your own prejudices into the conversation and read what I said.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Let me make this simple for you Frank since you seem to be missing the point.

1. It is possible there is a God.
2. The argument that all things are created by a designer is self defeating so one can't logically argue for a God that exists in nature. At some point you have to have something not created by a designer if you have an ultimate designer. One can't logically argue there is a designer because every designer must have been designed by a designer into infinity. This leads to a logical path that can't ever be completed.
3. Since 2 exists, from a logic point there is no need to insert a God into the equation at any point since to do so leads to a logical regression that can't be completed.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

We have evidence of gnats.

There are billions and billions of other creatures that don't exist but possibly could. There is no need to argue for all of them since there is no evidence of them. The same is true of an ultimate designer. There is no evidence and there is no need. Why do you only argue about a designer when you could be arguing about all that was "designed" and wasn't?

Parados...the FACT that there is no evidence of a need for a GOD...

...says absolutely NOTHING about whether or not there is a GOD.

If you cannot comprehend that...and acknowledge it...there is very little use in discussing this with you.

The issue I was discussing when you introduced this illogical line of thought was: Is there the possibility of intelligent design...specifically, even though it appears some sort of evolutionary actions occurred, can we rule out that the actions were initiated by an intelligent designer (a GOD)?

We cannot.

The only two arguments I ever hear from atheists are variations on a) there is no need for a GOD; and b) the theists cannot produce a GOD for inspection.

Neither of those is a true argument that there is no GOD.

If you have any arguments other than those two...bring it forth and let us discuss it. Otherwise, be adult enough to acknowledge that we do not know and of course it is possible there is a GOD.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Let me make this simple for you Frank since you seem to be missing the point.

1. It is possible there is a God.

I am not missing the point, Parados.

And I agree...it is possible there is a GOD.

That is the end of this argument as far as I am concerned, because any guesses you make about the nature of that GOD...what IT can do or not do...how IT can exist or not exist...

...is nothing but pure guesswork on your part...and gratuitous, self-serving guesswork at that.

So get off it.

You cannot logically show that there is not the possibility of a GOD...which means you cannot logically show that there is no GOD.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Who is showing there is not the possibility?

There is a difference between showing the need vs showing the possibility.
If one can't use logic to argue a point then you might as well have unicorns flying out of your butt, Frank.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know