Question for believers in ID.

[Yazata]

The ID reasoning is "Everything has a source, except God."

That's not exactly true. The letters "ID" refer to "intelligent design", the contemporary reincarnation of the traditional design argument. Your "everything has a source (except God)" assertion seems to refer more to the assorted variants of the first-cause argument. They are very similar kinds of traditional cosmological theological arguments, but not the same one.

The ID reasoning is not "Everything has a source."

The "ID" reasoning is that simply prima-facie, some sorts of being in the universe are examples of intelligent design (or can only be explained by intelligent design, or something). Paley's paradigmatic example was a watch, which he felt clearly implied the existence of a watch-maker. Then the problem is to specify what kind of characteristics are (supposedly) evidence of intelligent design. That's an easy question when we are talking about objects that we already know are artifacts, but the answer isn't nearly as obvious when we are talking about unfamiliar objects whose origin is unknown.

Usually this question isn't even addressed by "ID" proponents. It's just treated as if it was somehow obvious. When it is addressed, the proposed indicator of intelligent design is often taken to be functional form, form that seemingly exists to fulfill a purpose, form that lends itself to functional explanations. Hence an "ID" argument would say that an animal's heart exists to pump blood, animal hearts obviously don't have a human designer, so they must have a hidden non-human designer who must possess amazing powers.

In the 18'th century even skeptics thought that argument was pretty much unanswerable, which is why Deism was so widespread among intellectuals at that time. Darwin changed all that by proposing a very plausible naturalistic explanation for the origins of functional biological form.

The ID reasoning is not "Everything has a source."

The assertion seems to be that all examples of functional form require an explanation. And it's also assumed that the explanation will have to proceed by analogy with familiar human crafts, and that our hypothetical explanations will have to take the form of hidden super-powered craftsman.

The problem for "ID" is that monotheistic religion's "God" seemingly displays functional form as well. "God" is often portrayed as a "person", with a human-style psychology. Even less personalized "Gods" are said to be the epitomy of order and reason itself, what Greeks called the "Logos".

So functional form either points beyond itself towards an external designer, or else it doesn't. If it doesn't, then the existence of "God-as-designer" seems to be an unnecessary leap. If functional form does have to have a designer, and if "God" is imagined as the ultimate source and origin of both function and form, then consistency would suggest that "God" must not be ultimate after all, and must have "his" own hidden designer. And we are off on Dinosaur's infinite regress.

 

[Balerion]

What on earth is this??

Where did IDers argue that "for something to come from nothing requires a creator"??

Are you kidding me? It's only one of their core arguments, that something cannot spontaneously arise from nothing without God. Have you never read the arguments of William Lane Craig?

Why do you insist on participating in these discussions without having the faintest clue as to what you're defending?

It still looks like you don't understand the ID reasoning.

I understand it fine. Though, misunderstanding it would still put me ahead of you, who doesn't seem to have any idea what ID even is.

You have accused the IDers of lying. That means you believe they know better. You yet need to prove that they indeed know better, but that they freely choose to misrepresent.

I already have provided evidence that they know better. The document that I provided does a fine job in outlining exactly what their motives are. Earlier in the thread, at SciWriter's urging, I posted highlights from a decision rendered by a federal court against ID, which included a comment about ID supporters' call to "teach the controversy" rather than actually teaching ID:

"This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. ​

And ID's history is rife with such dishonest and disingenuous tactics. Consider the inclusion of Stephen Meyer's paper into a peer-reviewed journal in 2004, so far the only article of its kind to be accepted in a legitimate journal. It only passed the peer-review process when one of the journal's editors, Richard M. Sternberg, decided to skip the peer-review process and publish the paper unilaterally. He later defended his decision, claiming to be the editor most qualified to review it, but in truth the thrust of the article was well outside of his discipline, and he was actually the least qualified editor for the job. But why would a scientist and editor at a peer-reviewed journal behave in such a way?

Because he was a creationist.

The "science" these people do is junk. And it's knowingly junk; Douglas Axe's paper about protein folding is intentionally misleading because his research doesn't actually test the hypothesis he forwards. In other words, it's a smoke screen. Even a young-earth Creationist can punch a hole through that. And these people spread their lies through ID-centric journals and lectures, unchecked by actual scientific peer-review. It's a knowing fraud.

But you'd know this, if you had ever done any research on the subject. Instead, you've chosen to troll a subject you know nothing about, playing the role of Devil's Advocate.

 

[wynn]

Actually, the IDer's argument, as I understand it is, that some things are too complex to have happened by natural means (irreducibly complex) and therefore require an "intelligent" designer. Why this same logic doesn't need to apply to the designer is unclear.

I think that the problem some people have with ID reasoning is of a formal nature that has nothing to do with ID or theism per se.
Namely, every line of reasoning requires that some things be considered as apriori, as givens.

That's not exactly true. The letters "ID" refer to "intelligent design", the contemporary reincarnation of the traditional design argument. Your "everything has a source (except God)" assertion seems to refer more to the assorted variants of the first-cause argument. They are very similar kinds of traditional cosmological theological arguments, but not the same one.

Sure. As far as I understood, the notion "Everything has a source, except God" is part of ID.

The "ID" reasoning is that simply prima-facie, some sorts of being in the universe are examples of intelligent design (or can only be explained by intelligent design, or something).

Like I said above, I think that the problem some people have with ID reasoning is of a formal nature that has nothing to do with ID or theism per se.
Namely, every line of reasoning requires that some things be considered as apriori, as givens.
And IDers consider it apriori, a self-evident given that some things are intelligently designed.

Personally, I neither believe nor disbelieve the ID reasoning, nor evolution. When I look at people, at animals, plants, it doesn't occur to me to think "They are designed" nor does it occur to me "They are not designed." Somehow, the thought of design or lack thereof doesn't occur in my mind.

Paley's paradigmatic example was a watch, which he felt clearly implied the existence of a watch-maker. Then the problem is to specify what kind of characteristics are (supposedly) evidence of intelligent design. That's an easy question when we are talking about objects that we already know are artifacts, but the answer isn't nearly as obvious when we are talking about unfamiliar objects whose origin is unknown.

I suspect that what is actually driving people to wonder about these things (whether they are theists or atheists) is a kind of basic existential doubt, a basic existential anxiety. So I'd rather address that doubt, that anxiety.

The assertion seems to be that all examples of functional form require an explanation.

It seems to me that the case is that people seek explanations for all examples of functional form.
And again, I think this goes back to that basic existential doubt, anxiety (and that is something I am interested in).

And it's also assumed that the explanation will have to proceed by analogy with familiar human crafts, and that our hypothetical explanations will have to take the form of hidden super-powered craftsman.

The problem for "ID" is that monotheistic religion's "God" seemingly displays functional form as well. "God" is often portrayed as a "person", with a human-style psychology. Even less personalized "Gods" are said to be the epitomy of order and reason itself, what Greeks called the "Logos".

So functional form either points beyond itself towards an external designer, or else it doesn't. If it doesn't, then the existence of "God-as-designer" seems to be an unnecessary leap. If functional form does have to have a designer, and if "God" is imagined as the ultimate source and origin of both function and form, then consistency would suggest that "God" must not be ultimate after all, and must have "his" own hidden designer. And we are off on Dinosaur's infinite regress.

You are familiar with the sutta on the four unconjecturables, which are such that if one were to conjecture about them, one would be beset by madness and vexation, right? Speculating about the origin of the world and the things in the world is listed as one of those things.

Now, the suggestion of this sutta seems like an end to everything we've come to know as "philosophy." But philosophy being love of wisdom, why then should we indulge in philosophical wanderings that bring us madness and vexation? Surely that would be neither loving, nor wise.
But if we do continue to engage in such maddening and vexatious reasoning, then there quite likely is an attachment there that needs to be investigated. And it is this attachment I would investigate, not ID reasoning per se.

 

[wynn]

Why do you insist on participating in these discussions without having the faintest clue as to what you're defending?

But you'd know this, if you had ever done any research on the subject. Instead, you've chosen to troll a subject you know nothing about, playing the role of Devil's Advocate.

Blah. I'm not defending them. Get your camps straight.


As usual, I'm interested in the meta-issues in a conflict.

So this is the scenario: IDers make some bold claims, and the atheists and skeptics take issue with them, sometimes even viscerally.
Then I wonder why this reply from the atheists. The atheists, after all, believe themselves to have the superior view of things; they believe themselves to be in line with objective reality, in line with the truth.
If the atheists are so sure that they have the superior view of things, why then do they feel so strongly about the IDers, why do they feel so threatened by them?

I would think that someone who truly is superior, would either not be affected by opponents, or would be strong enough to annihilate them.

 

[Balerion]

Blah. I'm not defending them. Get your camps straight.

And here comes the full retreat.

As usual, I'm interested in the meta-issues in a conflict.

No, you were interested in defending ID until you realized that I actually know what I'm talking about. That's when you pull the cord and get the F outta Dodge.

So this is the scenario: IDers make some bold claims, and the atheists and skeptics take issue with them, sometimes even viscerally.
Then I wonder why this reply from the atheists. The atheists, after all, believe themselves to have the superior view of things; they believe themselves to be in line with objective reality, in line with the truth.
If the atheists are so sure that they have the superior view of things, why then do they feel so strongly about the IDers, why do they feel so threatened by them?

I would think that someone who truly is superior, would either not be affected by opponents, or would be strong enough to annihilate them.

This nonsense again? Ugh.

There is no excuse for you to ask this question. I've seen you ask it before, and it has been answered decisively every time. Besides, it's a stupid question. Can you really not see how having the facts on one's side does not always count for anything? Despite the decision in Pennsylvania, there are districts in this country that actually teach Creationism in biology class. There are forces at work here that are not susceptible to reason or logic, and the struggle to get the issue brought in front of federal courts is a long and slow one. In the meantime, countless children are having their science educations ruined.

That's the threat.

 

[Aqueous Id]

It seem to me that the ID argument can be applied to the designer, then applied to the designer of the designer, et cetera. Is there a way out of this hierarchy of designers?

Christian apologetics builds an elaborate scheme for explaining away the creation of Jesus so that--purportedly--no conundrum arises there. Other than that, they're stuck with assuming God existed into an infinite past, which is hugely problematic. That is, how did "now" arise at all, if first an infinity of "nows" had to expire?

It's unclear to me how the existence of time ad infinitum is supposed to be any more intuitive than matter ex nihilo, even before you throw in the magic, smoke and mirrors that creationists use to refute physics and biology. Their ideation gets even further wrapped around the axle upon consideration of the proposition that time itself is a phenomenon associated with the Big Bang.

Their argument is not valid in the first place. It hasn't been since at least the Elightenment, or even since Galileo found the moons of Jupiter. It may have had a certain kind of validity within the context of the ancient world. But it's more absurd today than ever, in light of the overwhelming evidence that--in case it wasn't already self-evident--the whole of Christian metaphysics is just an invention, to explain phenomena for which there was no science. It can now be safely tossed out onto the slag heap of bad ideas without disturbing the order of nature, or causing a global flood, or of people turning into pillars of salt, or of the moon turning blood red and rolling up like a scroll.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

I've never seen a statue, watch, battery, bulb, or teabag being created. But you know what, they look created and by jingo, they are.

So, anything that looks created is created?

Do you think it is impossible for any natural process to "create" order out of chaos?

The universe looks created or caused by something with intelligence.

That rather depends on your perspective, doesn't it?

Nice try JR.

The primary definition of ''thing'' is ''a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object.''

And nice try by you to worm your way out of addressing the actual point by claiming that God is not a "thing" that exists, and therefore needs no cause. That's just a special pleading based on a convenient redefinition of "thing".

Of course there's no prior, as far as you're concerned, there is as far as I'm concerned.
Now if you know for a scientific fact that there was no prior to time...spill.

That's not what I said.

I'm not interested in your need to introduce God into any picture.

No? I'm quite interested in your quite [/i]immense[/i] need to introduce God into every picture.

The multiverse hypothesis is just a way of keeping the divine foot out of the door.

No, Jan. There really isn't a Grand Conspiracy of Modern Atheist Scientists fiddling the data and the theories to keep your God out. The multiverse hypothesis is just one of many hypotheses that are in play in physics - open possibilities that we can't rule out until we have better information. At the cutting edge of science, you'll find that scientists are quite able to entertain many hypotheses - even contradictory ones - simultaneously. In the end, nature decides.

...because materialism is absolute.

As opposed to its being subordinated to your favorite God, I suppose.

The thing is, I believe there are multiple universe, and it is explained this in some scriptures.

No you don't. You believe in some vague notion of heaven and maybe hell, and that's about it. Your universe is very small.

And the criterion is to satisfy modern atheists?

There you go again with the Grand Conspiracy- the one you have so far utterly failed to establish in any way.

Becuse some editions have pretty pictures in the centre pages.

So you've never stepped back to consider whether your favorite scriputures are reliable or not. I thought as much.

 

[SciWriter]

Are you kidding me? It's only one of their core arguments, that something cannot spontaneously arise from nothing without God. Have you never read the arguments of William Lane Craig?

To Craig's credit, he got as far as realizing that all things must have beginnings, which goes back to the basis of the universe, but then he falls into the debit of incredibility, as unfortunate for his continuing notion, since beings and Beings would have to be included in what has beginnings, but he arbitrarily excludes a Being, even though a Being would have to be a zillion levels more complex than beings (like us), and then completely undoes himself by having the Being to be Something Forever, as already made but never made, which is a way of saying that it is not from anything, which is akin to the From Nothing notion that he already rejected.

He is theist, a cleric even, and so his wishes cloud his outlook. Best to openly look at what is known, and go from there.


Wynn: You keep wondering why debate happens in a debate forum.

 

[SciWriter]

That's the threat.

Great point!

 

[SciWriter]

Christian apologetics builds an elaborate scheme for explaining away the creation of Jesus so that--purportedly--no conundrum arises there. Other than that, they're stuck with assuming God existed into an infinite past, which is hugely problematic. That is, how did "now" arise at all, if first an infinity of "nows" had to expire? …

Good stuff.

The nature of believers' strong belief will probably induce 'neglect' to the taking in of the information. All is not lost, though, for there may be fence-sitters reading here.

 

[Balerion]

To Craig's credit, he got as far as realizing that all things must have beginnings, which goes back to the basis of the universe, but then he falls into the debit of incredibility, as unfortunate for his continuing notion, since beings and Beings would have to be included in what has beginnings, but he arbitrarily excludes a Being, even though a Being would have to be a zillion levels more complex than beings (like us), and then completely undoes himself by having the Being to be Something Forever, as already made but never made, which is a way of saying that it is not from anything, which is akin to the From Nothing notion that he already rejected.

He is theist, a cleric even, and so his wishes cloud his outlook. Best to openly look at what is known, and go from there.

When he debated Laurence Krauss (which I think is the only recorded debate Krauss has participated in), who shot down his "something from nothing" argument by showing that there may be no such thing as "nothing," Craig continued as if the argument had not been defeated. In other words, there's nothing impressive about him except his salesmanship. Just like the rest of the ID proponents, they're both punching above their weight, and lying to make up the difference.

Wynn: You keep wondering why debate happens in a debate forum.

It's disingenuous. She was gung-ho for the fight when she (mistakenly) thought brute-force incredulity could knock us off our blocks. The second she felt genuine resistance to her uninformed counter-argument, she back-peddled as if she wasn't really talking about ID, but the "meta-conflict," and hid behind pedantry from the hard evidence presented.

She lives for the debate. This is just one of the cases where she came into a debate completely blind and yet took one side of it decisively, only to flee from the fight when her fraud had been uncovered. Her only real complaint is that people are outing her as such.

 

[wynn]

And here comes the full retreat.


No, you were interested in defending ID until you realized that I actually know what I'm talking about. That's when you pull the cord and get the F outta Dodge.

Oh, yeah, I mustn't forget: I am whatever you say that I am.

:bugeye:

This nonsense again? Ugh.

There is no excuse for you to ask this question. I've seen you ask it before, and it has been answered decisively every time. Besides, it's a stupid question. Can you really not see how having the facts on one's side does not always count for anything? Despite the decision in Pennsylvania, there are districts in this country that actually teach Creationism in biology class. There are forces at work here that are not susceptible to reason or logic, and the struggle to get the issue brought in front of federal courts is a long and slow one. In the meantime, countless children are having their science educations ruined.

That's the threat.

This just goes to show that your presumed superiority isn't an actual one.

 

[wynn]

Wynn: You keep wondering why debate happens in a debate forum.

So?

 

[SciWriter]

So?

So, it's normal, even the following up and going into detail.

 

[wynn]

So, it's normal, even the following up and going into detail.

Uh-huh. But aren't you interested in what drives people to debate, and to debate in a particular way?

Understanding what drives people helps to understand and evaluate what they say.

 

[Balerion]

Oh, yeah, I mustn't forget: I am whatever you say that I am.

:bugeye:

You keep forgetting that your words are there for everyone to read...

This just goes to show that your presumed superiority isn't an actual one.

And that comment just goes to show that your presumed intelligence isn't an actual one.

Science is superior to superstition. What do you think the life expectancy would be if not for modern medicine? How well would a Florida home stand up to a category 2 storm today if not for science? What outlet would you have for your inane thoughts without the internet? What would we know of the universe if we still believed in astrology? How many times has prayer cured cancer?

In any case, most districts in the country don't teach creationism, and the ones that do are violating the Constitution of the United States of America. If you want to call a handful of districts which are headed by fundamentalist nutbags "being superior to science," then you need to check your perspective.

 

[SciWriter]

Uh-huh. But aren't you interested in what drives people to debate, and to debate in a particular way?

Understanding what drives people helps to understand and evaluate what they say.

Well, they can tell us, if you make a thread for it. For me it is to learn, but, of course, it is good to know something about the debate topic, since one is expected to impart information, too. A lot of my cosmology learning and new connections thereof became of a great side effect of joining 'God' threads.

And sometimes we do note debate flaws, as those can never fly, especially here, and these do belong in the debate, since they are about the content, not the person, but they came from the person, and so this may get into understanding the person, for example, such as a person having a strong nature of belief in a myth, which seems to have them just declaring it over and over, which we might go into explaining in an attempt to resolve.

Some may have drives, and it is good that they tell of them, such as with the Dover thing, in going against myth entering into education and government, but all the while still employing valid debate contents, such as the trial documentation provided. Iran does myth in its education and government, but that is an intended Theocracy.

Anyway, a thread on human nature might tell of drives, and may also forestall debates methods that flop.

 

[SciWriter]

Oh, yeah, I mustn't forget: I am whatever you say that I am.

:bugeye:

For example, the above has flaws. Words posted do tell, and it is only in that scope that they are referenced as your input, not in the largest scope of all that you are as a person (“I am”)—which is possibly being used to distract from the focus on the words in your posts.

The “Oh, yeah, I mustn’t forget” intro seems as a distraction ‘hint’ appealing to that there is just a superior-type thing going on here (“mustn’t”), which would lesson the validity of the responses to your words and also to your words being your words, as in this case.

The “whatever you say” is a further deflection towards neglecting the response, and the “whatever” part is saying than any and all of what Balerion says is not applicable to your words.

Responses should have some meat to them. Having them be as shields doesn’t do it, and that posturing is only going to be uncovered in this place, although in daily life it may work to some extent.

The ‘bugeye‘ icon was another attempt at same.

 

[wynn]

You keep forgetting that your words are there for everyone to read...

And yet not everyone makes the same projections.

Science is superior to superstition.

Apparently not, as long as a bully can beat a nerd.

What do you think the life expectancy would be if not for modern medicine? How well would a Florida home stand up to a category 2 storm today if not for science? What outlet would you have for your inane thoughts without the internet? What would we know of the universe if we still believed in astrology? How many times has prayer cured cancer?

In any case, most districts in the country don't teach creationism, and the ones that do are violating the Constitution of the United States of America. If you want to call a handful of districts which are headed by fundamentalist nutbags "being superior to science," then you need to check your perspective.

Misrepresenting again, huh?

For example, the above has flaws. Words posted do tell, and it is only in that scope that they are referenced as your input, not in the largest scope of all that you are as a person (“I am”)—which is possibly being used to distract from the focus on the words in your posts.

The “Oh, yeah, I mustn’t forget” intro seems as a distraction ‘hint’ appealing to that there is just a superior-type thing going on here (“mustn’t”), which would lesson the validity of the responses to your words and also to your words being your words, as in this case.

The “whatever you say” is a further deflection towards neglecting the response, and the “whatever” part is saying than any and all of what Balerion says is not applicable to your words.

Responses should have some meat to them. Having them be as shields doesn’t do it, and that posturing is only going to be uncovered in this place, although in daily life it may work to some extent.

The ‘bugeye‘ icon was another attempt at same.

The supremacy trip, again ...

 

[SciWriter]

The supremacy trip, again ...

Content not addressed. Just a broad-brushed sweeping generalization trying to cover for the lack of specifics, of which there apparently are not any.

Do you not foresee these eventualities, Wynn?

Same with your reply (and other replies) to Balerion.