The flaws in Intelligent design

[Subduction Zone]

Why falsely accuse me of something when I've consistently said faith is believing without knowing.
The bus schedule gives you faith the bus will be on time but you don't know because it could have a flat, be in an accident, get stuck in traffic, etc. You can't refute it so you falsely accuse me of being inconsistent when you are the one that thinks faith comes in different ways. It's not my fault that you couple it with things and think it has a different meaning, more or less meaningful.
Again, faith is believing without knowing.

That is a very poor definition of "faith". Yes, there are different levels of confidence in something occurring but that is not the same as faith.

 

[We Never Know]

That is a very poor definition of "faith". Yes, there are different levels of confidence in something occurring but that is not the same as faith.

Poor definition. It's exactly what faith is. Define it better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Poor definition. It's exactly what faith is. Define it better.

No problem, as used by Christians and other people of a religious bent faith is belief without sufficient evidence.

If someone has a good reason to believe something they very rarely use the term "faith". They will tell you that they find the bus schedule to be very reliable. And if the weather is bad they know ahead of time since they can reason why it may not be reliable.

Whenever using a word it is wise to understand the context of that word. Religious faith is quite different from the faith that you are trying to use:

"
faith
Dictionary result for faith
/fāTH/
noun

1. 1.
   complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
   "this restores one's faith in politicians"
   synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence; More
   
   
2. 2.
   strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
   synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, persuasion, religious persuasion, religious belief, belief, code of belief, ideology, creed, teaching, dogma, doctrine
   "she gave her life for her faith" "

 

[We Never Know]

No problem, as used by Christians and other people of a religious bent faith is belief without sufficient evidence.

If someone has a good reason to believe something they very rarely use the term "faith". They will tell you that they find the bus schedule to be very reliable. And if the weather is bad they know ahead of time since they can reason why it may not be reliable.

Whenever using a word it is wise to understand the context of that word. Religious faith is quite different from the faith that you are trying to use:

"
faith
Dictionary result for faith
/fāTH/
noun

1. 1.
   complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
   "this restores one's faith in politicians"
   synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence; More
   
   
2. 2.
   strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
   synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, persuasion, religious persuasion, religious belief, belief, code of belief, ideology, creed, teaching, dogma, doctrine
   "she gave her life for her faith" "

Good definition of faith coupled with religious, religious faith. Not faith itself. Faith itself is believing without knowing. You can say believing without evidence, yet with out evidence you dont know, we are back to believing without knowing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good definition of faith coupled with religious, religious faith. Not faith itself. Faith itself is believing without knowing. You can say believing without evidence, yet with out evidence you dont know, we are back to believing without knowing.

But one does know that buses are fairly reliable. That is observable and testable. Not so much with religious faith.

 

[dianaiad]

Subjective is not a dirty word. But, subjective evidence or experiences will never prove a god exist. For that you need objective evidence, something from outside of the mind.

Gee. I wonder how many times I have to write that we cannot prove that god exists empirically before someone actually reads it?

 

[dianaiad]

Science is not based on faith. Science is based on objective evidence.
Religion is based on faith.
Faith = belief without evidence

Faith = trust in beliefs.
Belief = opinion based upon evidence.

that evidence does not need to be acceptable to you...or to anybody else. Nobody believes anything without some reason to do so, no matter how nutty someone else thinks that evidence is.

As soon as someone says 'I believe this because...." that 'because' is evidence. It may not be objective, or acceptable to anybody but the believer, but it's still evidence.

What we all must do is examine that evidence to see if it makes any sense. If it does, take it into account. If it doesn't, don't.

But do NOT disparage folks who accept as evidence reasons you don't think qualify as properly objective. That could very well get turned around on you. You can, IMO, say 'I don't accept that as good evidence." You can say "I only accept, for my own beliefs, objective evidence." You can NOT say that people who have religious beliefs believe them because of NO evidence.

Shoot, you believe most of the scientific accomplishments of the world on exactly the same evidence that many theists use to support their own beliefs: someone you trust said so.

Because unless you have personally gone out and repeated all the experiments that caused the discoverers to come to their opinions, you are relying on someone else's word for it. You believe that George Washington was the first president of the USA (technically he wasn't, btw) because your teachers told you so, and you read history books. You believe that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon...why? Because someone you trust told you.Because people you trust showed you videos. But you didn't go to the moon with Armstrong to make sure, and I dare you to repeat that particular experiment.

Most theists believe what they do for the same reason; someone they trust told them.

 

[Maximilian]

Just because something is complex does not mean it has to be made by an intelligent designer nor is there clearly any goal orientation in our universe that can be proven.

Neither pattern nor order are of particular concern. It’s the arrangements of numerous interrelated constituent parts or elements in a string of steps adhered to in a clear-cut logical order to effectuate a task, purpose, goal or operation (ordered complexity) which always betrays the existence of an intelligent mind. It's what makes a particular signal, for instance, instantly recognizable from random white noise. (That's why SETI scours the universe for radio signals.)


So you see, trying to use "poof" (fantastic chance)% to explain the outrageously small compound probabilities of standalone events giving us a life sustaining universe is utterly naked, absurd sophism.

%“It is our contention that if ‘random’ [chance] is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws, physical, chemical and biological.” -“Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Dr. Murray Eden, MIT


%“There is no chance (<10-1000) to see [evolution based on mutation and natural selection] appear spontaneously and, if it did, even less for it to remain. Thus, to conclude, we believe there is a considerable gap in the Neo-Darwinian Theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.” -“Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution,” Marcel P. Schutzenberger, the University of Paris (Bracket mine.)​

This multiplicity of probabilities atop probabilities atop probabilities atop probabilities adequately illustrates the staggering probability of our universe winding up with the optimum blend and ratios of life permitting constants by pure chance.


Your reasoning makes it acceptable for someone who stumbles upon a copy of “Hamlet” to believe it is really the product of an infinite group of monkeys in an infinite assortment of universes banging away duplicates of texts at an infinite group of typewriters generated by yet another infinite group of monkeys in some other group of infinite universes banging away at their infinite bunch of typewriters rather than just simply concluding “Shakespeare.”


Concordantly,


1. The fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe are due to either physical necessity, chance or deliberate design.


2. It is not due to either physical necessity or chance.


3. Therefore, it is due to deliberate design.


If you If you hear hoofbeats, why think unicorns?

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Faith = trust in beliefs.
Belief = opinion based upon evidence.

that evidence does not need to be acceptable to you...or to anybody else. Nobody believes anything without some reason to do so, no matter how nutty someone else thinks that evidence is.

As soon as someone says 'I believe this because...." that 'because' is evidence. It may not be objective, or acceptable to anybody but the believer, but it's still evidence.

What we all must do is examine that evidence to see if it makes any sense. If it does, take it into account. If it doesn't, don't.

But do NOT disparage folks who accept as evidence reasons you don't think qualify as properly objective. That could very well get turned around on you. You can, IMO, say 'I don't accept that as good evidence." You can say "I only accept, for my own beliefs, objective evidence." You can NOT say that people who have religious beliefs believe them because of NO evidence.

Shoot, you believe most of the scientific accomplishments of the world on exactly the same evidence that many theists use to support their own beliefs: someone you trust said so.

Because unless you have personally gone out and repeated all the experiments that caused the discoverers to come to their opinions, you are relying on someone else's word for it. You believe that George Washington was the first president of the USA (technically he wasn't, btw) because your teachers told you so, and you read history books. You believe that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon...why? Because someone you trust told you.Because people you trust showed you videos. But you didn't go to the moon with Armstrong to make sure, and I dare you to repeat that particular experiment.

Most theists believe what they do for the same reason; someone they trust told them.

If you don't have objective evidence, then all you have is subjective evidence from the mind. Subjective evidence can't be proven outside of the mind.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Gee. I wonder how many times I have to write that we cannot prove that god exists empirically before someone actually reads it?

You may have to write it several times.
So, your saying that God can only be proven subjective? Why don't you think god can be objective proven?

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Neither pattern nor order are of particular concern. It’s the arrangements of numerous interrelated constituent parts or elements in a string of steps adhered to in a clear-cut logical order to effectuate a task, purpose, goal or operation (ordered complexity) which always betrays the existence of an intelligent mind. It's what makes a particular signal, for instance, instantly recognizable from random white noise. (That's why SETI scours the universe for radio signals.)


So you see, trying to use "poof" (fantastic chance)% to explain the outrageously small compound probabilities of standalone events giving us a life sustaining universe is utterly naked, absurd sophism.

%“It is our contention that if ‘random’ [chance] is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws, physical, chemical and biological.” -“Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Dr. Murray Eden, MIT


%“There is no chance (<10-1000) to see [evolution based on mutation and natural selection] appear spontaneously and, if it did, even less for it to remain. Thus, to conclude, we believe there is a considerable gap in the Neo-Darwinian Theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.” -“Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution,” Marcel P. Schutzenberger, the University of Paris (Bracket mine.)​

This multiplicity of probabilities atop probabilities atop probabilities atop probabilities adequately illustrates the staggering probability of our universe winding up with the optimum blend and ratios of life permitting constants by pure chance.


Your reasoning makes it acceptable for someone who stumbles upon a copy of “Hamlet” to believe it is really the product of an infinite group of monkeys in an infinite assortment of universes banging away duplicates of texts at an infinite group of typewriters generated by yet another infinite group of monkeys in some other group of infinite universes banging away at their infinite bunch of typewriters rather than just simply concluding “Shakespeare.”


Concordantly,


1. The fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe are due to either physical necessity, chance or deliberate design.


2. It is not due to either physical necessity or chance.


3. Therefore, it is due to deliberate design.


If you If you hear hoofbeats, why think unicorns?

This word salad need some poppyseed dressing.

 

[Maximilian]

This word salad need some poppyseed dressing.

Where did you get lost? I'm happy to help walk you through what you found too challenging

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Where did you get lost? I'm happy to help walk you through what you found too challenging

You could have wrote it in about a third to half the words.

 

[dianaiad]

If you don't have objective evidence, then all you have is subjective evidence from the mind. Subjective evidence can't be proven outside of the mind.

And this disproves my point, how, precisely? You are absolutely right, btw. If you don't have objective evidence, then what you have is subjective evidence. It's still evidence. What the rest of us need to do is examine the evidence and decide for ourselves whether it is evidence sufficient to prove a point.

 

[dianaiad]

You may have to write it several times.
So, your saying that God can only be proven subjective? Why don't you think god can be objective proven?

Mostly because nobody has managed to do so yet..

Now the reason WHY that hasn't been done is both simple...and problematic. Those who do not believe figure that if there is any possible explanation for something, no matter how outlandish or complicated or twisty, then that explanation must be the truth. Why?

Because God doesn't exist, of course, so no matter what other explanation is used, it must be the correct one.

Circular, of course, but then why should theists be the only ones who go all circular on us?

It's a case of 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,' I suppose. Of course, proving that no god exists is also a problem for those who make that claim.

 

[We Never Know]

But one does know that buses are fairly reliable. That is observable and testable. Not so much with religious faith.

Did you get lost or just blind. Faith is simply faith. You can couple/label it with religious faith or what ever. Waiting on the bus has not a damn thing to do with "religious" faith. It has to do with faith in general. You have faith the bus will be on time but you don't know and can't guarantee it will be on time. You have faith it will be on time and your faith comes from the bus schedule, same as Christians faith come's from the Bible.
Faith is believing without knowing. Schedule or not, you cannot show the bus will be on time every day, yet you have faith it will.
Faith is believing without knowing.
If you want to continue your pointless objections, go take them up with the bus scheduler. I'm done wasting time with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you get lost or just blind. Faith is simply faith. You can couple/label it with religious faith or what ever. Waiting on the bus has not a damn thing to do with "religious" faith. It has to do with faith in general. You have faith the bus will be on time but you don't know and can't guarantee it will be on time. You have faith it will be on time and your faith comes from the bus schedule, same as Christians faith come's from the Bible.
Faith is believing without knowing. Schedule or not, you cannot show the bus will be on time every day, yet you have faith it will.
Faith is believing without knowing.
If you want to continue your pointless objections, go take them up with the bus scheduler. I'm done wasting time with you.

And back to equivocation fallacies.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

And this disproves my point, how, precisely? You are absolutely right, btw. If you don't have objective evidence, then what you have is subjective evidence. It's still evidence. What the rest of us need to do is examine the evidence and decide for ourselves whether it is evidence sufficient to prove a point.

Subjective evidence varies from person to person. Objective evidence exist outside of the mind. It can be tested and get the same results.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Mostly because nobody has managed to do so yet..

Now the reason WHY that hasn't been done is both simple...and problematic. Those who do not believe figure that if there is any possible explanation for something, no matter how outlandish or complicated or twisty, then that explanation must be the truth. Why?

Because God doesn't exist, of course, so no matter what other explanation is used, it must be the correct one.

Circular, of course, but then why should theists be the only ones who go all circular on us?

It's a case of 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,' I suppose. Of course, proving that no god exists is also a problem for those who make that claim.

Theist are the ones that claim a god is real. But they fail to provide objective evidence that a god exist.
As an Atheist that lack of objective evidence means that a god doesn't exist.

 

[Audie]

You could have wrote it in about a third to half the words.

The parts that are not a Gish of cut n paste, maybe.

If a person needs a lot of words, it it generally means they
dont really understand their topic.