Who designed the ID?

[Dinosaur]

I do not understand why those who advocate ID do not carry their logic further.

There argument is very simple: A complex creature like a human being cannot just happen. Such a creature must have been designed by an iintelligent entity.

Assuming their argument has some merit, who designed the ID? Surely a designer is more complex than the object/entity he/she designed. Hence there must be a meta ID who designed the ID. If so, then who designed the Meta ID?

The argument for the existence of an ID leads to an infinite series of Intelligent Designers. Is this what advocates of the ID believe? If not, why not?

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Unlimited designers, each of whom are dumbing down. What will we design? Something worse than ourselves. This is not good.

 

[VitalOne]

I do not understand why those who advocate ID do not carry their logic further.

There argument is very simple: A complex creature like a human being cannot just happen. Such a creature must have been designed by an iintelligent entity.

Assuming their argument has some merit, who designed the ID? Surely a designer is more complex than the object/entity he/she designed. Hence there must be a meta ID who designed the ID. If so, then who designed the Meta ID?

The argument for the existence of an ID leads to an infinite series of Intelligent Designers. Is this what advocates of the ID believe? If not, why not?

No, this isn't true...

God is complex in one way, but simple in another way....so simple that he's so complex......

Atheists ignore all the evidence for design in the universe and will choose any other conclusion besides there being an intelligent cause....you know why? Because they just have to refuse anything that contradicts their faith-based belief system....so they rule out all possibility of an intelligent cause...

 

[Jeremyhfht]

No, atheists like myself have refuted all the evidence theists have given us.

Stop being an ignorant jackass.

 

[VitalOne]

No, atheists like myself have refuted all the evidence theists have given us[i/].

Stop being an ignorant jackass.

Yeah, the reason they refute it is because they don't want to even admit the possibility of God....in other words atheists will accept ANY conclusion besides there being an intelligent cause...

Take for instance the anthropic principle which shows how everything in universe just happened to be perfectly fined-tuned for intelligent life (us), so fine-tuned that even a small change in any of the principles behind reality would cause intelligent life to no longer exist. Instead of saying well there could be an intelligent cause behind reality, the atheists using faith says "no it just can't be, there must be a multiverse"....so the atheists are willing to accept the many-worlds interpretation (of which there is no empirical evidence for) over an intelligent cause.....all of a sudden "ahh I don't need no f*cking evidence for anything, I can just blindly believe it, its better than believing in an intelligent cause, so who cares"

Then there's abiogenesis, which says that the first species of life came from inorganic matter...this theory was great up until the genetic revolution, when biologists realized that there was "data" within each cell that was read, interpreted, translated, etc....the simplest forms of life have all these design features typical of an intelligent cause....bioengineers find that it has a lot similar with computers.....now biologists go into labs and say "well lets put some chemicals together and see a cell form" but no luck...over 50 years pass and still no empirical evidence supporting abiogenesis.....so the atheist says "oh well, it just can't be an intelligent cause....the natural cause is just unknown, who really cares if there's no empirical evidence to support an undirected naturalistic cause, I'll take any conclusion besides an intelligent cause"

Then there's all the theories which say that consciousness exists independently of the brain like the space-time consciousness theory and the many-minds interpretation. There's also the many problems neurologists face when trying to explain consciousness as the result of just chemical reactions. Now the atheist says "yeah who cares, I some how know everything and can thus conclude that consciousness is only the result of brain activity, anything else is just an imaginary fantasy delusional fools believe in"

So basically the atheist will believe and take ANY conclusion besides an intelligent cause...

 

[Oli]

Yeah, the reason they refute it is because they don't want to even admit the possibility of God....in other words atheists will accept ANY conclusion besides there being an intelligent cause...

Wrong.

Take for instance the anthropic principle which shows how everything in universe just happened to be perfectly fined-tuned for intelligent life (us), so fine-tuned that even a small change in any of the principles behind reality would cause intelligent life to no longer exist. Instead of saying well there could be an intelligent cause behind reality, the atheists using faith says "no it just can't be, there must be a multiverse"....so the atheists are willing to accept the many-worlds interpretation (of which there is no empirical evidence for) over an intelligent cause.....all of a sudden "ahh I don't need no f*cking evidence for anything, I can just blindly believe it, its better than believing in an intelligent cause, so who cares"

If that's what you think atheists say then you have grossly misunderstood both the Anthropic Principle and the "Many Worlds" theory.

Then there's abiogenesis, which says that the first species of life came from inorganic matter...this theory was great up until the genetic revolution, when biologists realized that there was "data" within each cell that was read, interpreted, translated, etc....the simplest forms of life have all these design features typical of an intelligent cause....bioengineers find that it has a lot similar with computers.....now biologists go into labs and say "well lets put some chemicals together and see a cell form" but no luck...over 50 years pass and still no empirical evidence supporting abiogenesis

Oooh, "over 50 years" big f*cking deal. How long "should" it take? Of course there's empirical evidence supporting abiogenesis - we're here.

.....so the atheist says "oh well, it just can't be an intelligent cause....the natural cause is just unknown, who really cares if there's no empirical evidence to support an undirected naturalistic cause, I'll take any conclusion besides an intelligent cause"

Because there IS no empirical evidence of an intelligent cause maybe?

Then there's all the theories which say that consciousness exists independently of the brain like the space-time consciousness theory and the many-minds interpretation. There's also the many problems neurologists face when trying to explain consciousness as the result of just chemical reactions. Now the atheist says "yeah who cares, I some how know everything and can thus conclude that consciousness is only the result of brain activity, anything else is just an imaginary fantasy delusional fools believe in"

Name ONE atheist that says "I know everything".

So basically the atheist will believe and take ANY conclusion besides an intelligent cause...

Because there is no evidence for an intelligent cause.

 

[VitalOne]

Wrong.

If that's what you think atheists say then you have grossly misunderstood both the Anthropic Principle and the "Many Worlds" theory.

What do you mean explain?

Oooh, "over 50 years" big f*cking deal. How long "should" it take? Of course there's empirical evidence supporting abiogenesis - we're here.

50 years is a lot in modern history times....

Because there IS no empirical evidence of an intelligent cause maybe?

no undirected naturalistic cause + deisgn features = intelligent cause....take for instance a TV, the Great Pyramids, etc...

Name ONE atheist that says "I know everything".

They don't say it they assume it...

Because there is no evidence for an intelligent cause.

Yes there is, lots of evidence for design, consciousness, faith, etc...

Its a shame you're blinded by your great atheistic faith...

 

[Oli]

What do you mean explain?

The Anthropic principle doesn't say anything about the universe being tuned for "intelligent life", it's about it seemingly being tuned for us. Specifically. If the numbers had been different then something else may have arisen.
The "Many Worlds" theory is to do with quantum physics and photon/ electron/ etc wave/particle duality.
Learn some science before you argue against it.

50 years is a lot in modern history times....

Yes it is. And the origin of life is a massive mystery. You want ALL the answers in your lifetime? How egocentric.

no undirected naturalistic cause + deisgn features = intelligent cause....take for instance a TV, the Great Pyramids, etc...

You keep trotting this out and you keep ignoring the answers. The pyramids and TVs are NOTHING WHATSOVER to do with anything. We KNOW they were designed. We do not "know" life was designed. The opportunities/ ways for it to arise number in the millions(?) Given the right conditions it could have gone any way.

They don't say it they assume it...

Incorrect. You assume they assume it. Atheists just say "no evidence" And a genuine atheist will also add "if evidence arises I'll gladly alter my view".

Yes there is, lots of evidence for design, consciousness, faith, etc...

No evidence for design. Obviously evidence of consciousness, (except in some SF posters), exists and faith undeniably exists, as evidenced by the posts on SF.

Its a shame you're blinded by your great atheistic faith...

And you are blinded by the fact of your faith into being totally incapable of understanding that someone can live without faith. There is no faith required for atheism.

 

[Provita]

The problem is, ID is not science. It is an idea, not a scientific theory, which has roots in all things not science. Going against the scientific process, which looks at evidence and gathers conclusions, ID "Theory" starts off with a conclusion and seeks for evidence, most of which is refutable or backed by circular logic, or by no logic at all.

Intelligent Design is a crock, and its not scientific whatsoever and has no evidence besides the presupposition that complex things must be created. While there is no evidence for that (thus it being a presupposition and not a fact).

You can call me an idiot, a stupid atheist, an ignorant evolutionist, but unlike most, if not all ID'ers, I do not deny the possibility that evolution is wrong and that, say in 100 years, there will be a different, better scientific theory explaining things.

What people don't get is that Evolution does not explain how the Universe came to be, nothing does with utter certainty, however there is evidence suggesting the Big Bang. Even so, no one can be sure what was before the Big Bang. So all you god lovers can still say whoever or whatever created everything, but once you start suggesting that a creator, something of which there is absolutely NO evidence for, is part of science, then you have crossed the line and will be attacked for it.

Intelligent Design has absolutely no evidence backing it up, and until I see some truly scientific evidence, along with the rest of the majority of the scientific community, ID will never be taken seriously except by Evangelical Christians (a good majority of ID'ers) in the Bible Belt wanting to teach it in public schools (Kansas).

Also, to suggest that a creator does not have a creator because the creator is simple suggests that you can prove that statement. Unless you can prove that a creator is simple in nature without using faith, but hard science, the statement that a creator does not have a creator is baseless and complete bull.

Show me some damned evidence for ID.

[Side note] However, we all REALLY know both Evolution and ID are wrong, and FSMism is right.

 

[Provita]

how convenient this must be for you.

I don't really see how this helps in the discussion at all. :bugeye:

isn't this the very definition of "the supernatural"?

Not the very one, but it can surely be compared. Your point? :shrug:

For something to be supernatural, it means it has no scientific evidence, only circumstantial evidence that can be interpreted and misinterpreted, misidentified, and made-up entirely. Plus, the moment someone admits it is supernatural, it doesn't belong to science, which eliminates the entire debate placing ID outside of science classes and only in theology classes which they won't do, because Creationism is so much easier to teach!

 

[Provita]

That evidence being?

And they meaning most theology teachers teaching... well... theology.

And so you admit it must take something supernatural, which thus kills the argument of whether ID should be taught in Science Class (but I suppose the argument of which is correct can still stand... for now) ?

 

[VitalOne]

The Anthropic principle doesn't say anything about the universe being tuned for "intelligent life", it's about it seemingly being tuned for us. Specifically. If the numbers had been different then something else may have arisen.
The "Many Worlds" theory is to do with quantum physics and photon/ electron/ etc wave/particle duality.
Learn some science before you argue against it.

I find this funny, the way you defined the anthropic principle was almost exactly the way I did (I even put in parenthesis "us"). I already know a lot about the many-worlds interpretation.

Also what I find funny is that atheists consider that the many-worlds interpretation could be true, without empirical evidence, but all the other theories supporting consciousness existing independently of the brain, evidence for design, etc..they just don't consider can be true.....don't you get it? anything that goes against atheism they just can't accept...its like a faith-based belief system...

Yes it is. And the origin of life is a massive mystery. You want ALL the answers in your lifetime? How egocentric.

No but how long before you consider an intelligent cause? I'm guessing that even in 1000 years if biologists are unable to produce the first species in labs, others like you will say the samething "who cares, the natural cause is unknown, lets ignore the possibilty of an intelligent cause"

You keep trotting this out and you keep ignoring the answers. The pyramids and TVs are NOTHING WHATSOVER to do with anything. We KNOW they were designed. We do not "know" life was designed. The opportunities/ ways for it to arise number in the millions(?) Given the right conditions it could have gone any way.

Hahaha, another funny response...

You see there is no way for us to "KNOW" that the first species were designed like you can for TVs, and Great Pyramids, therefore we have to look at the design features....and so the conclusion is no undirected naturalistic cause+design features = intelligent cause.....tell me how can you "KNOW" if the first species were designed or not?

There's lots of ancient structures that we don't know who built, or how it was built...so why don't we conclude it was just a natural formation? Its because, no undirected naturalistic cause + design features = intelligent cause...

Incorrect. You assume they assume it. Atheists just say "no evidence" And a genuine atheist will also add "if evidence arises I'll gladly alter my view".

Yeah, but you still deny and reject any evidence provided...therefore you DENY the evidence...

No evidence for design. Obviously evidence of consciousness, (except in some SF posters), exists and faith undeniably exists, as evidenced by the posts on SF.

And you are blinded by the fact of your faith into being totally incapable of understanding that someone can live without faith. There is no faith required for atheism.

What do you mean no evidence for design? Whats the anthropic principle then? Whats with gravity, the nuclear force, and all the other principle forces behind reality being so perfectly tuned just for us to exist? Thats not design? I guess your atheistic faith is blinding you again...

 

[VitalOne]

Not the very one, but it can surely be compared. Your point? :shrug:

For something to be supernatural, it means it has no scientific evidence, only circumstantial evidence that can be interpreted and misinterpreted, misidentified, and made-up entirely. Plus, the moment someone admits it is supernatural, it doesn't belong to science, which eliminates the entire debate placing ID outside of science classes and only in theology classes which they won't do, because Creationism is so much easier to teach!

So how can someone gather evidence of the supernatural? This is typical of atheists, ask for evidence of the supernatural but deny any type...

 

[Provita]

So you agree it requires the supernatural, which cannot be proven by science, and thus ID "Theory" should not be taught in Science classes?

And I dont "deny any type" of evidence for the supernatural, because there is none. To say something is supernatural is to admit there is no direct scientific evidence for it. Science only proves the natural.

 

[VitalOne]

So you agree it requires the supernatural, which cannot be proven by science, and thus ID "Theory" should not be taught in Science classes?

And I dont "deny any type" of evidence for the supernatural, because there is none. To say something is supernatural is to admit there is no direct scientific evidence for it. Science only proves the natural.

Well tell me how can I gather evidence of the supernatural? You obviously won't accept anything, so what will you accept?

 

[Provita]

How is it "obvious" I wont accept anything? You assume, because I'm "a foolish Atheist" that I will just block you out. And I just told you, you cannot prove things outside of nature with science, because science is "limited" to the natural world. So, back to the question you haven't answered:

[So you agree it requires the supernatural, which cannot be proven by science, and thus ID "Theory" should not be taught in Science classes?]

 

[VitalOne]

How is it "obvious" I wont accept anything? You assume, because I'm "a foolish Atheist" that I will just block you out. And I just told you, you cannot prove things outside of nature with science, because science is "limited" to the natural world. So, back to the question you haven't answered:

[So you agree it requires the supernatural, which cannot be proven by science, and thus ID "Theory" should not be taught in Science classes?]

So then you are saying your claim is unfalsifiable? First you say "there is no evidence of the supernatural", then I ask how can you gather evidence of the supernatural and you say "its outside of science", therefore your claim is completely unfalsifiable....you say there is no evidence, refuse any evidence, say gathering evidence is impossible, then ask for evidence...great strategy...

 

[Provita]

Pretty much... yes. It's not a strategy, look up what Science is. it concerns merely the "physical world" not the spiritual and/or supernatural world. So... yes... there is no scientific evidence for the supernatural because its impossible to get any. So, asking me how to do it is redundant, for its impossible. A Creator cannot be proven or disproven through science and *everyone* knows that.

I'm not using some roundabout strategy to "win", I'm simply stating the fact that Science and the Supernatural do not, in anyway, go together. In a scientific sense, my claims and your claims are both unfalsifiable.

And again, do you agree or disagree that ID cannot be proven or disproven through the science and thus should not be taught in science classes?

Please, answer the question. If you disagree with me, say so, but saying I have some sort of strategy isn't really answering it. If you think it can be proven by science, say so and show me the evidence.

Again, for the second time, you assume I will automatically ignore it. Trust me, I'm going to look at it.

 

[Balerion]

First of all, what is the point of teaching Intelligent Design? The student cannot strive to find the root of it, nor can they ask any questions regarding it, because the answer will always be one of faith: "God did it". You can't explore Intelligent Design anywhere but in the Bible.

principle forces behind reality being so perfectly tuned just for us to exist? Thats not design? I guess your atheistic faith is blinding you again...

In what way are these things specially designed for us? We weren't the first on this planet. The only reason Humanity is here at all is because of asteroid impacts which killed off the dinosaurs, and allowed small Mammals to develop.

If you're talking life in general, how are we supposed to know the answer to that question? At best, our current technology is attempted to recreate the conditions during the first second of the universe's existence, not determine what caused the universe. I don't imagine that we'd be able to ever reach a conclusion on that.

There's lots of ancient structures that we don't know who built, or how it was built...so why don't we conclude it was just a natural formation? Its because, no undirected naturalistic cause + design features = intelligent cause...

No. The reason we know that rocks being piled up in a certain design is man-made is because we can see rocks in their original state. We know where the stones for the pyramids came from, and could reasonably assume that people must have built them. We don't see these "design features" in any other state than the way they are, so we have no reason to believe anything other than that's just the way they are! Why just leap into the belief that something created us?

You are making the common mistake of "We can create things, so something must have created us."

Anyway, that's just foolish. Why believe that it didn't just happen?

Oh, and conditions won't be "perfect" for long. Eventually, the moon will escape, and that will make it very hard for us to be here. And eventually, the sun will expand and destroy the planet. So to say that we were designed is kind of foolish, seeing as so much has come before us, and so much will come after us. We are just a little blip on the map, man.

And one last thing...why would a designer have to be supernatural? Size is relative, so I don't see how it would take anything supernatural to create us...it would only take something bigger. Perhaps our universe is in a labratory somewhere?

 

[Provita]

Which would be sort of cool, I mean, the discovery that we were in a lab and all. Not the fact that someday they may shut down (whoever they may be) the "Universe" experiment.