Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@parados,

parados wrote:

Who is showing there is not the possibility?

We agree there is the possibility of a GOD. And if there is...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

That is what I said...so what is your problem?

Quote:

There is a difference between showing the need vs showing the possibility.

Who cares if there is a need for a GOD? Why would that impact on guessing there is one or guessing there is not?

Quote:

If one can't use logic to argue a point then you might as well have unicorns flying out of your butt, Frank.

Well...that makes no sense, Parados...but that seems to be par for the course when you are playing.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Occam's razor. Simply apply it to the process of evolution. That is all.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Occam's razor. Simply apply it to the process of evolution. That is all.

Ahhh...so you are invoking Occam's razor.

It has been my experience that Occam's razor is mostly invoked when people who shouldn't be in a philosophical discussion...find that they are in one over their heads.

Apply Occam's razor to the apparent motion of the sun and moon...and you will come up with nonsense.

Under any circumstances...IF there is the possibility of a GOD...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

If you think there is something wrong with the reasoning there...tell us what it is...and we can discuss it...without the nonsense of unicorns flying out of anyone's ass.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Under any circumstance, if there is the possibility of unicorns flying out of your ass then there is the possibility of unicorns flying out of your ass.

Occam's razor merely says assume the simplest explanation based on the evidence. Introducing things like unicorns and asses doesn't add anything more than introducing God does. Ergo. There is no need for God in evolution and no need for unicorns to fly out of your ass. However if you insist on introducing them, go ahead.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Under any circumstance, if there is the possibility of unicorns flying out of your ass then there is the possibility of unicorns flying out of your ass.

Occam's razor merely says assume the simplest explanation based on the evidence. Introducing things like unicorns and asses doesn't add anything more than introducing God does. Ergo. There is no need for God in evolution and no need for unicorns to fly out of your ass. However if you insist on introducing them, go ahead.

Great play, parados. You introduced them...and now you are suggesting I did.

Do what you want to with Occam's razor. As I intimated, it is a philosophical stance for losers.

We are still left with my original statement:

IF there is the possibility of a GOD...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

And my original challenge:

If you think there is something wrong with the reasoning there...tell us what it is...and we can discuss it...without the nonsense of unicorns flying out of anyone's ass.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

IF there is the possibility of a GOD...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

And I have never disputed that once so what is your argument?

You on the other hand have a serious disagreement with my statement that there is no need of God in evolution.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:

IF there is the possibility of a GOD...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

And I have never disputed that once so what is your argument?

You on the other hand have a serious disagreement with my statement that there is no need of God in evolution.

Wake up, Parados.

I have agreed in writing right here in this forum during our conversation with that. Never once have I had even a minor disagreement with it...let alone a serious disagreement.

Wake up...then discuss.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Who cares if there is a need for a GOD? Why would that impact on guessing there is one or guessing there is not?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Who cares if there is a need for a GOD? Why would that impact on guessing there is one or guessing there is not?

Who does care? And why?

That certainly is not taking exception to the notion.

Let me spell this out for you so that even you should be able to understand it:

The atheistic arguments a) there is no need for a GOD...and b) theists cannot produce a GOD for examination (which are both presented in various forms in almost every discussion)...

...ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!

There is absolutely no need or a GOD.

And no theist that I know of has been able to produce a GOD for examination.

But so what.

The fact that a thing is "not needed" is not proof...NOR EVIDENCE...that it does not exist.

There are all sorts of things that are "not needed"...but that exist.

And the fact that a GOD cannot be produced for examination also is not proof...NOR EVIDENCE...that it does not exist.

Nobody can produce a sentient being from any other planet circling any other star...but that is not proof...OR EVIDENCE...that sentient beings do not exist elsewhere.

Wake up, Parados...then post.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

By the way...when you decide to apologize for suggesting that I "have a serious disagreement with my statement that there is no need of God in evolution"...I will accept it graciously.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I am sorry Frank that you think calling something illogical and you don't care about it is agreeing with it. I apologize that your comments in bold implied you were disagreeing with the statement emphatically.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

I am sorry Frank that you think calling something illogical and you don't care about it is agreeing with it.

I disagree with "there is no need for a GOD" being used as proof or evidence of the the non-existence of a GOD.

I KNOW there is no need for a GOD to explain anything. I have NEVER suggested otherwise. I am in complete and total agreement with you on that, Parados...in an unqualified way.

Let me make it even more clear, because you seem to be having a great deal of difficulty with this:

I AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY AND WITHOUT RESERVATION THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR A GOD TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING.

(That, by the way, is shouting, because you apparently cannot hear things when they are said in a normal tone.)

BUT the fact that there is no need for a GOD is not proof or evidence that there is no GOD.

There are all sorts of things for which there is no need...but that exist nonetheless. HUMANS for instance.

So that was what I was contesting...not the statement itself.

Get it or pretend you do not get it...I have now gone completely on record about this issue. Better you should move on to something else...preferably something that actually makes sense.

Quote:

I apologize that your comments in bold implied you were disagreeing with the statement emphatically.

No problem...don't even mention it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

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

It's a Paradox Frank.. Hence Existence is defined at that totality of all that exists.. Meaning that the answer to this is that "if existence is not god", there is by definition and consequence no god at all. I presented it in a question to see if you would answer it.. Like wise, if you say Existence is god, then what of existence is not? Basically you can't argue anything not as again Existence is defined as all that exists. Thus you have a Paradox in the form of a dichotomy of either there are no gods at all, or that everything and everyone is GOD. That is as far as the concept can logically be moved, and literally means the concept entirely meaningless and moot.

Quote:

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

Ok, that means there is no god.

Quote:

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

Yep, if Existence is not, you have no hope there being anything of Existence in which can be cited as GOD. The concept in itself is nothing more, at best, a title and concept of opinion to which falls to the same paradoxical problem of all or none at all when moving the goal posts to their furthest extremes in either direction. It is a meaningless concept, and since the furthest extreme on the right would make everyone and everything god, as in moot, there is no logical sense in even bothering with the concept at all. There is no god, and nor does Existence require any such concept or title to exist.. It has no real value.

Quote:

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

This isn't begging the question, it's evaluating the merit of the concept by reviewing the concept from the two furthest extremes the concept can be addressed.. It becomes a Paradox in which essentially moots itself and or completely invalidates itself. This is regardless if the object of worship exists or not as we can see that the Pantheist god does indeed exist. The problem isn't whether the object exists, it is rather if the concept of GOD has any real value.. Existence itself pretty much kills the concept entirely on any philosophical, theological, or scientific level... At what point do I ever need consider the concept of GOD?... There is no more damning question I need consider than:

Quote:

What is GOD without Existence?

Instantly you realize the concept has no real value. Thus all I need to refute the concept is Existence itself, or the above question to which I will answer:

Quote:

A: Without Existence, there no god.. It is irrelevant, pointless, meaningless, non-existent, and at best nothing more than a non-entity, a figment of the Imagination, or title and concept of pure opinion to the point of being moot.

Worse still, ask thousands of sect, religions, and world views to define "GOD" and you will not get any coherent definition in which can ever be Universally applicable or relevant. The closest you can get is Existence itself, and it's moot at that point..

0 Replies

The whole god thing - Anthropomorphism
No matter how intellectual you get, it's the geezer with a beard being a bastard and doing magic. No matter how abstract.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I disagree with "there is no need for a GOD" being used as proof or evidence of the the non-existence of a GOD.

Since I never said that your disagreement seems to be with someone else so I am unclear why you responded to me while quoting me.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

The whole god thing - Anthropomorphism
No matter how intellectual you get, it's the geezer with a beard being a bastard and doing magic. No matter how abstract

Well, most bearded deities from Mesopotamia were mountain gods.. They are described as spirits of the Mountain to which is their abode, and their clothing or beards are often depicted in the context to that of snow and the snow-capped mountains (Read Revelations). In the bible this is well noted, but it at the same time goes deeper because EL Shaddai and Yahweh are depicted not as just the white bearded Mountain deities, but rather that of the volcanic nature.. Moon Mountain gods who take their seat upon their shining mountains. Further still, if you read Psalms the God of The Mountain is not only the spirit of the volcanic Mountain, but as the erupting mountain itself as the Rock of Israel (Psalms 18).

Anthropomorphism and animism date back near 40,000 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_man_of_the_Hohlenstein_Stadel

And the lion is still among the figures we still find associated in the roots of modern theology some 40,000 years later.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

I disagree with "there is no need for a GOD" being used as proof or evidence of the the non-existence of a GOD.

Despite who wrote that, one must ask what the value of the concept is if it is entirely without need.. I think one conflates a concept with an object and is unable to differentiate the two. For example, cows exist, and some hold the cows as divine objects of worship.. Are cows actually divine, and what real relevancy does that have in reality? As in is it even necessary, needed, or actually meaningful? No, and like the concept of god, divinity has no real actual value to which again would fall to the same problematic paradoxes as discussed above. This further exemplified by the question of what is a GOD or Divine thing when no such concept need be considered?

You can also do a social experiment by naming a child "GOD"..., the social and religious disconnect would be immediately clear as people contemplate calling this child GOD, and some may even convince themselves he or she is GOD.. Others might get aggressive and treat the child poorly as a false idol. Hence even Names are conflated with concepts where people can't often separate the two. It just further shows the concept is incoherent..

0 Replies

Quote:

Intelligent Design

"Intelligent design" creationism is not supported by scientific evidence.
...
The arguments of creationists reverse the scientific process. They begin with an explanation that they are unwilling to alter - that supernatural forces have shaped biological or Earth systems - rejecting the basic requirements of science that hypotheses must be restricted to testable natural explanations. Their beliefs cannot be tested, modified, or rejected by scientific means and thus cannot be a part of the processes of science.

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/IntelligentDesign.html

1 Reply

@FBM,

It's interesting to see how creationists try to divert science to support their god theory. They make every attempt to rationalize science to support creationism/intelligent design.

Sad.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

It's the underlying intellectual dishonesty that grinds my gears. Evasiveness, strawman fallacies, false dilemmas, etc etc. They wouldn't make it through midterms of a Logic 101 class.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know