• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What would refute creationism?

PureX

Veteran Member
Define your terms and your phrases.. If you cannot define them and are merely trying to sneak a god in where there is evidence for none then I will say that I do not see how being is "organized". I do not see how "existence is functional". I can see that many things are highly complex but does that mean all of existence is highly complex? I do not see that.

You appear to have no clear point. Your arguments tend to look just like creationist ones where they try to sneak a god in since they cannot find any evidence for one.

Right now all you have are arguments that are refuted with a simple:

So what?
It's not my responsibility to overcome your unwillingness to understand words the way they were intended. I have stated many times that I am not proposing any gods. The fact that you are obsessed with seeing that proposal, anyway, is not my problem to deal with. It's yours.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It's not my responsibility to overcome your unwillingness to understand words the way they were intended. I have stated many times that I am not proposing any gods. The fact that you are obsessed with seeing that proposal, anyway, is not my problem to deal with. It's yours.
The problem is that you do not appear to be using those words "as intended". You are trying to deny traditional usage but refuse to give a clear definition of terms.

There is nothing unreasonable in demanding that someone using a nonstandard definition to make his usage clear.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I told you I agreed with you regarding organized and functional. I guess you didn't see that either. You have not demonstrated purpose.
What would "demonstrate purpose" in your mind? For us to determine whether or not something it "functioning", it needs a purpose that we can then observe it fulfilling, or not fulfilling. You already understand that DNA is functional, and yet you insist on trying to deny that it serves a purpose.

This is NOT RATIONAL. Yet you keep insisting that it's my responsibility to somehow overcome your determined irrationality regarding the term "purpose". And there is no way I can do that because it's your choice, not mine, to stop being irrational. You only objection to the term seems to be that it implies agency of some sort. And you can't have that. But again, this is not my problem to overcome. So stop insisting that I deal with it for you.

Deal with it yourself.
Now you have added complexity into the mix. Complexity varies from simple to complex.
I posed nothing about any "demands" that things be complex. The observed fact that the complexity of existence far outstrips our human ability to fully comprehend it would logically indicate that existence is highly complex. And the fact that we are capable of comprehending some of that complexity logically indicates that it is organized, functional, and complex. And the fact that it is demonstrably functional logically indicates that it is also purposeful. Because we cannot determine functionality without purpose.

And you cannot explain how you are determining functionality without purpose.
There appears to be no demand that things be complex.
I made no claim that there is a demand for complexity.
That appears to be a consequence and simplicity occurs as well. For instance, there is no claim in the theory of evolution nor standing conclusion from it that living things must proceed towards complexity.
Living things are already so complex that we still do not fully comprehend how they are as they are. Every aspect of existence is complex beyond our ability to fully comprehend it. So what part of existence are you calling "simple"? We still have no idea how existence even exists. And the deeper we look into it, the more complicated it gets.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
What would "demonstrate purpose" in your mind? For us to determine whether or not something it "functioning", it needs a purpose that we can then observe it fulfilling, or not fulfilling. You already understand that DNA is functional, and yet you insist on trying to deny that it serves a purpose.

This is NOT RATIONAL. Yet you keep insisting that it's my responsibility to somehow overcome your determined irrationality regarding the term "purpose". And there is no way I can do that because it's your choice, not mine, to stop being irrational. You only objection to the term seems to be that it implies agency of some sort. And you can't have that. But again, this is not my problem to overcome. So stop insisting that I deal with it for you.

Deal with it yourself.
I posed nothing about any "demands" that things be complex. The observed fact that the complexity of existence far outstrips our human ability to fully comprehend it would logically indicate that existence is highly complex. And the fact that we are capable of comprehending some of that complexity logically indicates that it is organized, functional, and complex. And the fact that it is demonstrably functional logically indicates that it is also purposeful. Because we cannot determine functionality without purpose.

And you cannot explain how you are determining functionality without purpose.
I made no claim that there is a demand for complexity.
Living things are already so complex that we still do not fully comprehend how they are as they are. Every aspect of existence is complex beyond our ability to fully comprehend it. So what part of existence are you calling "simple"? We still have no idea how existence even exists. And the deeper we look into it, the more complicated it gets.
I see that you still cannot separate function and purpose. Purpose implies agency since you are assuming that what you see being done is for a specific purpose. That is not how life works. Life itself has no conscious intent, or at least no one can support any. All that matters is if something works. If an organ that had been doing one job can also do another changing environments can cause that organ evolve and become more proficient at its new job over the older job it did. There was no change in intentional purpose. There does not ever appear to have been a purpose. There has only been function.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
It's not my responsibility to overcome your unwillingness to understand words the way they were intended.

My irony meter has just exploded.

I have stated many times that I am not proposing any gods. The fact that you are obsessed with seeing that proposal, anyway, is not my problem to deal with. It's yours.

I've went through great lengths explaining to you why people will walk away with thinking that you ARE in fact proposing gods (or similar). And the only reason is you insisting on using the word "purpose" when you really mean "function".

But hey........ It's not my responsibility to overcome your unwillingness to understand words the way they were intended :rolleyes:
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
What would "demonstrate purpose" in your mind? For us to determine whether or not something it "functioning", it needs a purpose that we can then observe it fulfilling, or not fulfilling. You already understand that DNA is functional, and yet you insist on trying to deny that it serves a purpose.

This is NOT RATIONAL. Yet you keep insisting that it's my responsibility to somehow overcome your determined irrationality regarding the term "purpose". And there is no way I can do that because it's your choice, not mine, to stop being irrational. You only objection to the term seems to be that it implies agency of some sort. And you can't have that. But again, this is not my problem to overcome. So stop insisting that I deal with it for you.

Deal with it yourself.
I posed nothing about any "demands" that things be complex. The observed fact that the complexity of existence far outstrips our human ability to fully comprehend it would logically indicate that existence is highly complex. And the fact that we are capable of comprehending some of that complexity logically indicates that it is organized, functional, and complex. And the fact that it is demonstrably functional logically indicates that it is also purposeful. Because we cannot determine functionality without purpose.

And you cannot explain how you are determining functionality without purpose.
I made no claim that there is a demand for complexity.
Living things are already so complex that we still do not fully comprehend how they are as they are. Every aspect of existence is complex beyond our ability to fully comprehend it. So what part of existence are you calling "simple"? We still have no idea how existence even exists. And the deeper we look into it, the more complicated it gets.


And there you go again.... doubling down on your error.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
My irony meter has just exploded.



I've went through great lengths explaining to you why people will walk away with thinking that you ARE in fact proposing gods (or similar). And the only reason is you insisting on using the word "purpose" when you really mean "function".

But hey........ It's not my responsibility to overcome your unwillingness to understand words the way they were intended :rolleyes:
And to add a bit. Just because one thinks that the way that one uses a word is correct, that does not mean it is being used the way that it is intended. That is another claim he needs to justify. That so many have called him out on it alone puts doubt into his claim. Worse yet in the sciences one has to always be willing to define and justify one's terminology. His refusal to follow reasonable rules tell us that we are probably correct in our suspicions. He does appear to be trying to sneak god in.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I challenge to :

1 quote my actual words

2 explain why is that fallacious

Can you do that?????????? nooooooo because you are just a fanatic atheist who makes false and unsupported accusation just to sound smart.
Many other posters have already done exactly that.

Dembski proposed SC many years back, and failed in backing it up. It's based mainly upon an argument from ignorance and/or personal incredulity.

What's a "fanatic atheist?"
 

gnostic

The Lost One
What would "demonstrate purpose" in your mind? For us to determine whether or not something it "functioning", it needs a purpose that we can then observe it fulfilling, or not fulfilling. You already understand that DNA is functional, and yet you insist on trying to deny that it serves a purpose.

This is NOT RATIONAL. Yet you keep insisting that it's my responsibility to somehow overcome your determined irrationality regarding the term "purpose". And there is no way I can do that because it's your choice, not mine, to stop being irrational. You only objection to the term seems to be that it implies agency of some sort. And you can't have that. But again, this is not my problem to overcome. So stop insisting that I deal with it for you.

Deal with it yourself.
I posed nothing about any "demands" that things be complex. The observed fact that the complexity of existence far outstrips our human ability to fully comprehend it would logically indicate that existence is highly complex. And the fact that we are capable of comprehending some of that complexity logically indicates that it is organized, functional, and complex. And the fact that it is demonstrably functional logically indicates that it is also purposeful. Because we cannot determine functionality without purpose.

And you cannot explain how you are determining functionality without purpose.
I made no claim that there is a demand for complexity.
Living things are already so complex that we still do not fully comprehend how they are as they are. Every aspect of existence is complex beyond our ability to fully comprehend it. So what part of existence are you calling "simple"? We still have no idea how existence even exists. And the deeper we look into it, the more complicated it gets.

The problem is what you thought to be "purpose" is really "function".

You seemingly to confuse the two as if they were one and the same.

If anyone isn't being "rational", it is you.

You have been corrected by @Dan From Smithville , @Subduction Zone and @TagliatelliMonster, several times by each, and yet you are the one who persisted on the wrong meaning and wrong usage of the word "purpose" and "purposeful".

Perhaps, if you had focused on using "function" and leave out "purpose" altogether, you might actually have someone agreeing with your points. But you persisted on going down the wrong path, because of what? Pride?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
The problem is what you thought to be "purpose" is really "function".
I have stated many times now that functionality cannot be determined without purpose. And so far no one has explained why they think it can. Instead they just keep repeating the mantra that purpose implies agency, and for some reason they just can't handle that implication.

Please explain how you can assess functionality without purpose. Otherwise, join your cohorts on the nonsense bench.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
I have stated many times now that functionality cannot be determined without purpose. And so far no one has explained why they think it can. Instead they just keep repeating the mantra that purpose implies agency, and for some reason they just can't handle that implication.

Please explain how you can assess functionality without purpose. Otherwise, join your cohorts on the nonsense bench.

On that case, if you see functionality as requering purpose I would easily dismiss that existence, as a whole, is functional, for there is no evidence of purpose.

Out of the 4 attributes, only two are left now: organized and complex.

As for organized, how would you distinguish apparent order (something that seems orderly just because of our perspective) from true order?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I have stated many times now that functionality cannot be determined without purpose.

And we have explained many times how that isn't correct.
With examples even.

And so far no one has explained why they think it can

Do you read the replies to your posts?
People have been doing exactly that multiple times over.

Here are just 2 examples of my own:

What would refute creationism? | Page 16 | Religious Forums
What would refute creationism? | Page 16 | Religious Forums


Instead they just keep repeating the mantra that purpose implies agency, and for some reason they just can't handle that implication.

It's not that people can't handle that. It's that
- as per your own acknowledgement that is NOT what you mean (so you shouldn't use words that imply that)
- if it IS what you mean, then it is an unsupported claim

Get over yourself.

Please explain how you can assess functionality without purpose

What would refute creationism? | Page 16 | Religious Forums


Otherwise, join your cohorts on the nonsense bench.

Juvenile.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
The function of everything that exists is to create and maintain the event of existence. Existence is the purpose. There may be some other purpose as well that we are not aware of, but the result is the obvious purpose. Just as the ability of life to exist and maintain existing on Earth is the purpose of all the functions involved in the process of life's evolution.

There are no functions without purpose because that would be randomocity. And randomocity is just a counter-ideal in the human mind, like 'non-existence' or 'eternity'. These are ideals with no existential manifestation. Imaginary landmarks in the mind, to help us think.

Your purposeless existence doesn't exist. Because to exist is the purpose.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
The function of everything that exists is to create and maintain the event of existence. Existence is the purpose. There may be some other purpose as well that we are not aware of, but the result is the obvious purpose. Just as the ability of life to exist and maintain existing on Earth is the purpose of all the functions involved in the process of life's evolution.

There are no functions without purpose because that would be randomocity. And randomocity is just a counter-ideal in the human mind, like 'non-existence' or 'eternity'. These are ideals with no existential manifestation. Imaginary landmarks in the mind, to help us think.

Your purposeless existence doesn't exist. Because to exist is the purpose.

And once again, you double down on assumptions that are not in evidence and / or the misuse of english words.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
What would "demonstrate purpose" in your mind? For us to determine whether or not something it "functioning", it needs a purpose that we can then observe it fulfilling, or not fulfilling. You already understand that DNA is functional, and yet you insist on trying to deny that it serves a purpose.

This is NOT RATIONAL. Yet you keep insisting that it's my responsibility to somehow overcome your determined irrationality regarding the term "purpose". And there is no way I can do that because it's your choice, not mine, to stop being irrational. You only objection to the term seems to be that it implies agency of some sort. And you can't have that. But again, this is not my problem to overcome. So stop insisting that I deal with it for you.

Deal with it yourself.
I posed nothing about any "demands" that things be complex. The observed fact that the complexity of existence far outstrips our human ability to fully comprehend it would logically indicate that existence is highly complex. And the fact that we are capable of comprehending some of that complexity logically indicates that it is organized, functional, and complex. And the fact that it is demonstrably functional logically indicates that it is also purposeful. Because we cannot determine functionality without purpose.

And you cannot explain how you are determining functionality without purpose.
I made no claim that there is a demand for complexity.
Living things are already so complex that we still do not fully comprehend how they are as they are. Every aspect of existence is complex beyond our ability to fully comprehend it. So what part of existence are you calling "simple"? We still have no idea how existence even exists. And the deeper we look into it, the more complicated it gets.
I understand. You can't fulfill your obligation to support your claim of purpose, so you turn this into a discussion about me and my failings. That seems to be what you are doing to everyone here with questions that you can't answer. Is that your purpose or just how you function?

A determination of functionality doesn't require a demonstration of purpose that I am aware of. You certainly haven't shown that it does. Combative responses shifting the burden of proof doesn't show that things have purpose of their own and is not working as a demonstration for you.

I don't think you understand the difference between function and purpose.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I have stated many times now that functionality cannot be determined without purpose. And so far no one has explained why they think it can. Instead they just keep repeating the mantra that purpose implies agency, and for some reason they just can't handle that implication.

Please explain how you can assess functionality without purpose. Otherwise, join your cohorts on the nonsense bench.
It isn't our job to explain why that is not so. It is your responsibility to show us that what you claim is so.

Without resorting to circular arguments, shifting of the burden of proof, and never-ending recitation of "it's obvious", explain to us your claim.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
func·tion
/ˈfəNG(k)SH(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
All
Computing
Mathematics
Chemistry
noun
  1. 1.
    an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
    "bridges perform the function of providing access across water"












    Similar:
    purpose

    task
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
:facepalm:

If there was such thing as irony-meter, you would have broken the meter’s needle with your last question.

You are infamous for not supporting your assertions. :p

I did supported my assertion
To support? All I am saying is that maybe "random variation + NS" is not the main and most important cause for evolution..

I was even accused by many for making an uncontroversial assertion that no scientist denies
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
You forgot that my argument was based upon evidence that supported it. And argument from ignorance occurs when one only has a lack of evidence that opposes it. If one can support one's ideas with positive evidence, as I clearly did, then it is not an argument from ignorance.

That is why people keep asking your for evidence that supports your claims.
I also supported my claims, and the fact that you are ignoring the evidence that I provided strongly suggests that the evidence is pretty good
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
No. That is false. People do so regularly. I just did. You simply deny the refutations. And they are almost always very clear refutations that do not require an advanced degree to understand. Your only response is denial or you totally ignore the correction.

And once again that is why you cannot justly demand evidence. When one continually simply denies that person has lost that right. People may volunteer evidence to you, but do not take that as a concession on their part. It is often done for the lurkers, not for you since you will only go back to denial or ignoring the post.


I just did
sorry once again your comment was delited
 
Top