Stiff;7500310 said:Trashboat;7500277 said:Stiff;7500244 said:Trashboat;7500208 said:Stiff;7500187 said:Trashboat;7499710 said:Stiff;7499393 said:If the argument is intelligent design proves the existence of a creator, but the design is not intelligent, then it obviously does not prove shit now does it?
Who are you to say the design isn't intelligent? Have you seen how complex DNA is? You believe that since the universe isn't utopian and purely utilitarian then it's not possible that it could have been intentionally created. That's irrational. That's the point of the thread.
DERP
English please.
Arguments by analogy are trash
look at the first comments to this thread, they stressed the failures of the analogy and the details it can not explain
Seldom are two objects similar enough for an analogy to really hold after the differences are examined
It's well established in logic and philosophy
Subjective. The first comments in this thread were varied
Abiogenesis is a completely different topic
even if it is not true it does not prove a God exists, which is the topic of the thread
Either life originated from nothing or life originated from something. There's no evidence that supports the idea that life originated from nothing. There's only speculation. That's relevant to the thread topic.
Basically, you feel a god exists so you think it's true
that's fine
I don't think with my feelings though
Straw man much?
The creation contradicts the nature of the creator. Not only that but there is no reason to believe there is intention behind it as there is no direct evidence, only speculation. In the face of the support for the more scientific theories there is no reason to believe theistic accounts.
How could you say the creation contradicts the nature of the creator when you have no knowledge of the nature of this theoretical creator? There is no direct evidence of the absence of the existence of a creator, only speculation. The fact that there are holes in the science is enough reason to believe some theistic(and that's an extremely broad net to cast) accounts. You've reached your conclusion off of speculation just like any theist has.
The nature of the creator is described by religious texts.
I would not believe there was a bird on your head unless I saw one. To assume that there is a bird on your head when I can not see it and have no evidence indicating that is ridiculous. Likewise for the belief in a God.
I've reached my conclusion off of moderate skepticism
Asking for evidence and being presented nothing convincing
Just arguments from analogies and promises of reward after death
You're debating religion which is the flaw of your argument. There are various descriptions of various deities throughout numerous religions that have been practiced throughout human history. That's not what we're talking about here. It seems like your whole stance has been against the God described in the Bible, which is not what this discussion is about.
There is plenty of evidence that supports the idea of intelligent design ( the complexity of DNA, the uniformity of the laws of the universe, etc). You however can present no evidence that debunks the idea of intelligent design, just the argument "the universe isn't perfect like how i would have designed"
And then you dedicate multiple posts talking about how analogies are the weakest form of argument -- and then you come back and argue your point with an analogy. LOL that's silly. Stop ducking this question:
If science has not disproved the existence of God and likely never will how is it logical to rule out the possibility of a Creator of the Universe, which atheism does?
There are many arguments against intelligent design
One is that you're injecting a bias of your experience into your analysis of the natural world, and then support that bias with inductive arguments that compare two unlike things
Fallacious
Another is that this is not the best possible world, as shown by Tyson
Intelligent design is not falsifiable, and therefore not grounded in anything observable or testable
Intelligent design criticizes evolutionary perspectives with some irreducible complexity argument, which you seem to be invoking with your mention of DNA
but evolution has already explained this
There are time lines that show linear change over time which completely refute claims that the universe was made in 6 days by an invisible man in the sky
I pretty much hit on every point in your reply in my preceding post, so maybe you should go back and re-read that. Again, i'll state that this isn't a discussion of the God described in the Bible. You do realize that there is more than one religion in the world right? You also realize that even if EVERY religion was not true that doesn't disprove the existence of a being that is responsible for the creation of the universe?
So then it's what, a discussion of a God you made up?
What difference does it make?
You simply try to strengthen the argument by making broader assertions and being as vague as possible
It still does not have any evidence, which means there is no reason to believe it
Stiff;7500310 said:You're injecting your bias of your experience as well when you support Tyson in the belief of the "non perfect world".
Yes, but if the deity is all good, all loving and all powerful he should be able to make the best possible world
which he failed to
Evolutionary theory accounts for this imperfect world
A God can not
Stiff;7500310 said:The bolded is absolutely false. Only microevolution has been observed in nature. To date macroevolution has not been observed and has not been able to be replicated. There is no explanation for the creation of genes, which would be required for the idea that life originated from single-celled organisms. Evolution only explains the mutation of such genes.
Speciation has been observed in plants and mammals