The Black Vault

Redefining Disclosure

Skip to content

A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

[ Facebook comments] - NEW! Don't have a FREE Black Vault account? You can still comment using your Facebook, AOL, Hotmail or Yahoo! accounts at the bottom of the page.

Whether you believe in a higher power or not, this forum is dedicated to the topic of religion and spirituality. We live in a diverse world with different morals and ideas when it comes to our beliefs, so come in and share your thoughts.
Post a reply


Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby humphreys » Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:37 am

greeney2 wrote:Atheists claim God does not exist, where is the proof? :wave:
I'm just refuting that claim, that the burden has not been proven :crazy: !


Weak atheists, of which I am one, and which the vast majority of atheists are do not claim to have proof there is no God, they simply lack belief.

So, no burden of proof for the atheists. Try again.

You can not state there is no valid proof unless you define what valid proof would be.


That's simply not true.

I have reviewed the logical proofs for God and they are flawed.

I think perhaps the problem is you don't know what a logical proof is?

Do you believe the OP's logical proof is sound? If not, why are you arguing with me? If you think it's sound, I want to see you defend it against the refutations I have made.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.
Top

Share On:

Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter Share on FriendFeed FriendFeed Share on Digg Digg Share on Delicious Delicious Share on Technorati Technorati Share on Tumblr TumblrShare on Google+ Google+

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby khanster » Fri Jun 08, 2012 11:10 am

at1with0 wrote:
khanster wrote:
at1with0 wrote:Well all proofs are word games, so that point is kind of redundant.

Here's my proof:
1. God is the totality of all that exists
2. Ergo, God exists.

:wave:


Is the totality of all that exists intelligent?

Is intelligence greater than non-intelligence?

maybe


If we can establish an acceptable definition of intelligence, establish what we mean by "greater than", and show that intelligence is greater than non-intelligence, then the ontological proof will become an acceptable TOE.

If Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis is correct then intelligence is a type of mathematical structure and a self aware mathematical structure is greater than a non-self aware mathematical structure.

Not an easy task :think: :think: :think:
User avatar
khanster
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:18 am
Top

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby event_horizon » Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:10 pm

humphreys wrote:Either you accept a big bang without a creator or you don't, but for those who do, it only really makes sense for there to be a great number of them. I can't think of anything that occurs naturally that just happens a single time only and that's it.


Precisely. There's more than one tree in the forest; more than one star in the sky; more than one monkey at the zoo. The same would apply to the existence of multiple universes. I would even go as far as saying that if a "God" created this universe, there would definitely exist way more than just one "God," since nature would have had to create them.

Our beliefs have gone from just one Earth, to just one solar system, to just one galaxy, to just a few galaxies, and now we realize there are hundreds of billions of galaxies that we can see. The only thing keeping us from seeing more of the universe is time. Our bubble has gotten so big we can't see the end of it. And I'd bet my life on it that there's more than just one bubble/universe.
I don't believe what I believe because it's what I desire to believe. I believe what I believe because it's what logic and reason cause me to believe. All I want is to live with the truth -- nothing more, nothing less.
User avatar
event_horizon
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:51 am
Location: Colorado
Top

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby humphreys » Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:54 pm

An infinite number of Gods, now there is a scary thought!
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.
Top

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby greeney2 » Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:29 pm

event_horizon wrote:Weak atheists, of which I am one, and which the vast majority of atheists are do not claim to have proof there is no God, they simply lack belief.

So, no burden of proof for the atheists. Try again.


The idea one is a strong or weak atheist, and defined as not having to provide proof, is pretty lame. If you don't believe, thier is no degree of how much more or less your non-belief is measured. As far as proof, I've said many times, and have not changed what I've said, and that is the only proof of this question to any of us, is to die, as the way to find out. We all get the proof on that day, and nobody has ever returned to tell us the answer.

Its rather odd, not to mention a cop out, to sit in judgement or everyone elses Logic, or Faith based on logical concenceous, when you can not even express a logical proof standard of you own.

Yes, I do know what logic is, and there are many standards used in logic. Did you read wikipedia's definition? Many forms of reasoning, and many differences in logic between cultures, both by countrys, and by time in history, etc.. It is not just Humphreys simple idea of logic, that you are a "critical thinker" and believers are incapable ofit.

Humphreys why are you unable to explain, what logical proof would you accept, if you are a critical thinker? Its a very simple question.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9119
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Top

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby at1with0 » Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:38 pm

Proof is irrelevant when you simply lack belief.
"Be as wise as a serpent and as innocent as a dove."
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 8986
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures
Top

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby frrostedman » Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:04 pm

at1with0 wrote:
frrostedman wrote:
at1with0 wrote:What are the attributes of the greatest thing? For example, did it talk to Moses through a burning bush?

We couldn't possible know all the attributes, but, doesn't it make sense that we would have a record created to account for the attributes we DO know about?

I don't understand the relevance of the 2nd question.

Let me try to explain.
khanster wrote:The classic ontological argument for the existence of God runs as follows:

1. God is the greatest imaginable being.

2. All else being equal, a being or entity that exists is greater than one that doesn't.

3. Therefore, God exists.



The obvious question is is that God the Christian God.

Do we have a record of the known attributes of God. Perhaps.


That is a very poor ontological argument. It appears circular but actually I think it suffers from worse than circular reasoning. It's just plain absurd.

YES at1. I agree. To me, there isn't a (reasonable) question as to whether a Creator exists. The real question is, who--if anyone--believes in the actual Creator? Christians? Muslims? etc.
"But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about Jesus being a great teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." C.S. Lewis
User avatar
frrostedman
 
Posts: 3557
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:01 pm
Top

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby frrostedman » Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:06 pm

khanster wrote:
at1with0 wrote:The God of Christianity is also the God of the old testament writings. Such a God is defined as being a vengeful and jealous being, that dishes out punishment and reward. Jealousy and vengeance are not attributes of perfection but instead are attributes of inadequacy.

Attributes such as jealousy (though in the bible, the traditional definition isn't quite right), sadness, happiness are not attributes of inadequacy. Otherwise, the "preferred" God would be a robot with no feelings. A God with feelings, emotions, and love for His creation is vastly superior and preferable.
"But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about Jesus being a great teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." C.S. Lewis
User avatar
frrostedman
 
Posts: 3557
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:01 pm
Top

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby frrostedman » Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:08 pm

at1with0 wrote:No creator is simpler than creator plus creation.

No it's not because creation can't be created without a creator. So, to have all this stuff of reality around us without a creator, you have to get around it with all kinds of theories and scenarios with no evidenciary support. That is vastly more comlicated than: Creator + creation.
"But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about Jesus being a great teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." C.S. Lewis
User avatar
frrostedman
 
Posts: 3557
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:01 pm
Top

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby at1with0 » Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:14 pm

Being owned by feelings is not greater than the alternative.

frrostedman wrote:
at1with0 wrote:No creator is simpler than creator plus creation.

No it's not because creation can't be created without a creator. So, to have all this stuff of reality around us without a creator, you have to get around it with all kinds of theories and scenarios with no evidenciary support. That is vastly more comlicated than: Creator + creation.



Assuming existence was created, which in turn requires a creator, is more complicated than realizing existence was not created.
"Be as wise as a serpent and as innocent as a dove."
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 8986
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply







The Social Network Buzz
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to Religion & Spirituality

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

[ ]