Well, I guess I’d do better next time! Because I’d be closer and closer to a working recipe. Odds of good cake increase with each failure and resultant lesson learned.
Who is the “you” in these vignettes, Lonnie? Because I feel like you’re describing intelligent design for me. I don’t think that’s what you meant to do, and yet neither does it make sense that there’s a glitch in your computer that broadcasts binary code and it happened to glitch toward a website with a forum, and then further happened to spew its code into the posting box there in a manner that happily produced coherent text, and then an electrical pulse of some sort caused the “reply” button code to engage so that your words appeared - and somehow seemed to relate to my post.
Sure, it could happen. It could. I acknowledge that. And I acknowledge your examples above, though I read them as something along the lines of “despite lacking a motivating agency, a process of trial and error is undertaken.” It just doesn’t satisfy me, intellectually or emotionally. I’m very comfortable with evolution of species and the orderly adaptation of systems as changes occur over time (warming and cooling cycles, for instance, or the impact on the ecosystem of the depletion or removal of a species), but even quantum mechanics leaves room for hidden variables and uncertainties.
I simply don’t know. But there are many things I don’t know, so I’m comfortable with that.
Actually, no. In terms of scientific validity, it matters not one whit whether one posits creation of the world whole-cloth 6000 years ago, or creation of the Big Bang singularity 16B years ago. The problem is much more fundamental, and it is this: The “modern scientific archetype” (good term!) cannot countenance supranatural factors as explanatory/causal mechanisms. That is, one cannot embed God, magic, witchcraft, a Higher Power, etc, in an explanation for natural phenomena, and expect the scientific community to accept that explanation as science.
A related aside: A common misunderstanding that derives from this fact is the belief that science rejects the existence of God. Not so. Science is utterly mute on this, because there is no way to use science (which relies solely on natural law) to investigate an entity that purportedly exists outside of natural law.
This is simply incorrect. All that need happen is for a proto-system to provide a reproductive advantage, and it will be carried forward.
Finally, I would point out that you and others seem to be conflating the limits of your imagination (‘There’s no way this could have all happened by chance’) with the limits of the universe. They are not the same.
I think I get your point here, but this might be misleading (or I might be misreading). Science isn’t necessarily mute, because it can show how things could happen in natural ways that don’t require supernatural powers. Evolution vs. creationism is a decent example, where science can show the evidence for how humans came to be that go against supernatural or religious belief.
I do agree that there is no way to truly disprove that there is no god named Zeus sitting on a throne in the clouds staring at us right now.
What I meant by mute was that no scientist would assert that science has been/can be employed to make a determination re the existence of God. (Which is of course not to say that individual scientists can’t have an opinion in this regard.)
Exactly. No scientist could/would say that it is a science-derived fact that, eg, the Judeo-Christian creation myth is false. Given its constraints, science has to be mute on such subjects.
That proposition is simply not supportable in any objective sense. What could possibly be the basis for it other than a failure of imagination as described above?
Adaptive change can be directly observed in species with very rapid reproductive rates. Further, changes in genetic code can be documented as well. In short, this ‘assumption’ rests on a very solid scientific firmament.
It also bears pointing out that evolutionary/ID explanations for the origin and diversity of life do not comprise a ‘zero-sum game.’ That is, one cannot point to perceived deficiencies in evolutionary models and claim (explicitly or implicitly) that such deficiencies somehow tilt the field in ID’s favor. Whatever flaws/errors exist in the ‘random variation’ model, they are just that-- flaws/errors in the random-variation model. They are in no way evidence in favor of ID.
Yes. There are many arguments for the existence of God. But tell us very little about his nature.
There is no “He” here. These arguments and claims have been around for centuries. I happened to have cared enough to check their veracity. Some are a little wonky, some are bullet proof.
The arguments are based on 3 tenets. Existence, causation, and that the premises cannot lead to any other conclusion, other than an Uncaused-cause. The fact that the logic is necessarily a priori removes any ability for there to be subjective (more likely than not) argumentation. There is that as well, but its not what I am referring too.
Existence in the sense of ‘why does anything exist, rather than nothing?’ Causation in the sense, you have to find an uncaused entity that has no ability to cause anything else, that isn’t an Uncaused-cause.
Since you run into contradictions everywhere, the answer is not so simple as to dismiss.
I mean, you can choose not to care, but it does nothing to the veracity of the arguments. Again, they are not mine.
Start with Aristotle, go through Aquinas, into DesCarte, Kant, Plantinga, etc. And even see Darwin.
For all the argumentation above he said himself, “I deserve to be called a Theist.”
Not something you’d expect from the Father of evolution to say…
There are no “bulletproof” arguments for the existence of God. If there were, the existence of God would be taught as a fact in all schools everywhere.
I always used to wonder this because since I grew up in Texas I was usually the 1 Muslim out of a huge group of christians. I never really heard that much about kids attending churches when I was younger.i started to assume most of the youth were just not religious at all.
The mosques in my area have actual basketball courts. So when I was younger from mid like age 9-17 I would go to the mosque at least every weekend. Besides pray me and the other arabs asians and Somalis mostly made it like a hang out spot. Our parents would drop us off at the mosque on the weekends and we would just hoop or do some sort of group activities together and pray.
Now that I’m older I don’t go as much as I did before but I at least go to Friday prayer every Friday
I’m considering building some basketball courts at other mosques that don’t have rec activities for the youth. Cause when i traveled out of state I noticed kids didn’t really attend the mosque besides just for prayers. Not many kids actually had a fun time like I did.
Considering calling my mission #makingmosquefunagain
Plus rec actitivities I believe can help keep kids off the streets.
Cause non of the guys I hung out with at the mosque aren’t really joining gangs and committing crimes and etc.
All we did was hoop, talk about wrestling, anime, video games, and pray.
We all turned out pretty well too(mostly speaking about the Muslim youth in my area). A majority of us are attending universities with some working full time in other fields.
Haha. Protestants have dumb jokes about this. There’s the “drug culture” i.e. any time the doors were open my parents drug me to church. Sunday school, service, youth group, volunteering etc… 3-4 times per week.
And then there’s the “Chreasters”. Who only show up on Christmas and Easter. It’s a real thing. A small rural church with a normal attendance of 200 might have standing room only 500+ crowd for Christmas.
Then why not say “I dont know” instead of “there was an intelligent designer”, the two are opposing ideas and one is unsupported by evidence. Obviously you are free to believe things without evidence, but its not personally something that leaves me satisfied with it as an answer.
“I strongly believe” in no way states “there was” and nor do “tend to imagine” or “assume” make any claims. I’m wide open to proof in either direction, but until it’s offered I am left to decide for myself what to believe. I don’t feel wedded to anything that opposes anything else, so in stating that there are two opposing ideas and I hold one of them (unless the ideas are “I don’t know” and “I do,” which may be what you’re saying, I’m not sure) you miscategorize my stance. I await clarifying evidence, but until it arrives I will view things like heterosexual sex as supporting design, because it seems nothing short of a miracle that we (generally speaking) experience attraction toward the opposite gender, have a chemical process that makes us both desire and experience warmth and attachment toward another, and then are rewarded in the process of procreational activity through orgasm, which I think we can all agree is a delight, followed by the incredibly warm, satisfying feeling of being wrapped in a lover’s arms. Because not all of these elements are strictly necessary for the propagation of the species I view it as elegant design; beauty for its own sake. Because I am oriented toward benevolence I imagine its presence in the order of things, but that’s certainly nothing close to a claim.
I am still interested in understanding why you offered me two examples of non-design that in fact described design, and I would ask what evidence supports your own beliefs. (Let me here clarify that I don’t offer the above as evidence of any sort, just the kind of thing that I consider when deciding what I believe in the absence of proof.)
They are taught in school. At least in college philosophy.
You cannot make that statement until have actually examined the arguments and studied them sufficiently.
I think you are confusing academic rigor with religion and they are not the same thing. Proving the existence of an Uncaused-cause does not beget religion.
It is interesting how you made such an absolute statement without knowing the facts. That’s what religious people are accused of all the time.
Examine the evidence. Do the research and get back to me.
If you want a short read, read ‘There is a God’, by Anthony Flew.
Anthony Flew was a famous atheist philosopher, who later was convinced by these arguments and their irrefutable-ability and he lays his case out in a very detailed manner explaining that “He was forced to follow the evidence where it led him.” That’s not to say he ever became religious, to my knowledge he did not, but he did become a theist.
Lol! “Creasters” I like that. We always called them ‘C&E’s’.
I often wonder why they go at all. I mean if it’s not important to them, why bother on Christmas and Easter?
I guess they figure a little is better than nothing.
Because “I don’t know” is a bit lazy. I’d rather people say “I don’t care” because there is reams of information out there and one simply needs to spend some time with it.
If you care you should be able to come to a reasonable and defend-able position. If you don’t then you won’t even try. And you may not know, but you can’t know something you don’t try to know.
The second reason is ‘I don’t know’ is not an answer.