(December 6, 2013 at 12:52 am)snowtracks Wrote: 'we don't need to invalidate intelligent design' - but you could if you wanted to, right?

That's the problem. Intelligent design offers nothing to invalidate. It simply claims that god is responsible, and when pressed for evidence, ID proponent will give one of three things. They will either give pseudo-scientific ramblings(irreducible complexity), attempt to poke holes in evolution, which is nothing more than an argument from ignorance, or they will spew nonsense that amounts to nothing more than the trite "Look around you."

The thing is, snowball, you haven't even attempted any of those. After dribbling out some vapid philosophy, you've put your fingers in your ears and screamed "prove me wrong." And to top it off, you think you've won the debate.

(December 6, 2013 at 12:52 am)snowtracks Wrote: 'we don't need to invalidate intelligent design' - but you could if you wanted to, right?

Not me. I just start laughing every time I try to take it seriously. Sorry.

(December 6, 2013 at 11:01 am)Faith No More Wrote: That's the problem. Intelligent design offers nothing to invalidate. It simply claims that god is responsible, and when pressed for evidence, ID proponent will give one of three things. They will either give pseudo-scientific ramblings(irreducible complexity), attempt to poke holes in evolution, which is nothing more than an argument from ignorance, or they will spew nonsense that amounts to nothing more than the trite "Look around you."

The thing is, snowball, you haven't even attempted any of those. After dribbling out some vapid philosophy, you've put your fingers in your ears and screamed "prove me wrong." And to top it off, you think you've won the debate.

^ This. (Much more eloquent.)

(December 6, 2013 at 10:20 am)Tonus Wrote:

(December 5, 2013 at 11:15 pm)snowtracks Wrote: just exactly what exactly was it you saw in observation that convince you that creation wasn't correct. was it something along the road one day, or on a mountain top; or maybe it some stern aunt that was overly righteous?

That is a bit of a strange request. I would think that most people who abandoned religious belief did so because they found many flaws in the belief system. There may be those who, while studying some branch of science related to the universe, came to the conclusion that it wasn't created, but I suspect they're in the minority. If the belief system that claims a god exists and created everything falls apart, why would I deny the first but continue to believe the second? Especially if there is no evidence to support the first?

I know that the idea that the universe shows "the hallmarks of design" is common among theists as a way of providing 'evidence' for the existence of god. But is that what made you believe that there was a creator? Or had you already been convinced by people who told you there was and simply allowed confirmation bias to lead you to the 'correct' conclusion?

if one were do the fbi profiler methodology to start with evidence and work back to the source, the God hypothesis would be a possibly since nothing would rule it out. no, it doesn't prove God, but based on the evidence the hypothesis wouldn't be eliminated. then other theories could be worked-up to be evaluated and compared.

(December 6, 2013 at 8:41 pm)snowtracks Wrote: if one were do the fbi profiler methodology to start with evidence and work back to the source, the God hypothesis would be a possibly since nothing would rule it out. no, it doesn't prove God, but based on the evidence the hypothesis wouldn't be eliminated. then other theories could be worked-up to be evaluated and compared.

Considering that the feds have had that hypothesis on the table way too many times and in none of them has it turned out to be the real culprit... I think they'd be hard pressed to even keep considering that thing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpkzhvZ_CFM

(December 6, 2013 at 3:06 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:

(December 6, 2013 at 12:52 am)snowtracks Wrote: 'we don't need to invalidate intelligent design' - but you could if you wanted to, right?

I can, and I've done it.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-22006.html

bible references for intelligent design invalidations: not pertaining, but nice though.

(December 6, 2013 at 8:41 pm)snowtracks Wrote: if one were do the fbi profiler methodology to start with evidence and work back to the source, the God hypothesis would be a possibly since nothing would rule it out. no, it doesn't prove God, but based on the evidence the hypothesis wouldn't be eliminated. then other theories could be worked-up to be evaluated and compared.

You do realize that the FBI profiler methodology only works because of the body of information gathered from previous cases, right? They compare the behavioral similarities of all the different cases they've dealth with to reach a probable conclusion.

But you have no such body of knowledge to draw from. You don't have thousands of other universes with which to compare this one in order for you to be able to work to a conclusion backwards.

I would say that this is a case of using the wrong tool for the job, but I think this is more of a case of trying to mask the odor of ignorance by fallaciously attempting to justify faulty methodology with something you caught on the boob-tube.

(December 6, 2013 at 8:50 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(December 6, 2013 at 3:06 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: I can, and I've done it.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-22006.html

bible references for intelligent design invalidations: not pertaining, but nice though.

I'm pretty I proved you religion false in that thread.

(December 6, 2013 at 10:02 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(December 6, 2013 at 8:41 pm)snowtracks Wrote: if one were do the fbi profiler methodology to start with evidence and work back to the source, the God hypothesis would be a possibly since nothing would rule it out. no, it doesn't prove God, but based on the evidence the hypothesis wouldn't be eliminated. then other theories could be worked-up to be evaluated and compared.

You do realize that the FBI profiler methodology only works because of the body of information gathered from previous cases, right? They compare the behavioral similarities of all the different cases they've dealth with to reach a probable conclusion.

But you have no such body of knowledge to draw from. You don't have thousands of other universes with which to compare this one in order for you to be able to work to a conclusion backwards.

I would say that this is a case of using the wrong tool for the job, but I think this is more of a case of trying to mask the odor of ignorance by fallaciously attempting to justify faulty methodology with something you caught on the boob-tube.

it's abductive reasoning, it seeks to provide the most plausible broad, explanatory hypothesis but doesn't try to predict the future like inductive reasoning. for detectives - they gather evidence and develop a theory. what's your theory?

(December 6, 2013 at 8:41 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(December 6, 2013 at 10:20 am)Tonus Wrote: That is a bit of a strange request. I would think that most people who abandoned religious belief did so because they found many flaws in the belief system. There may be those who, while studying some branch of science related to the universe, came to the conclusion that it wasn't created, but I suspect they're in the minority. If the belief system that claims a god exists and created everything falls apart, why would I deny the first but continue to believe the second? Especially if there is no evidence to support the first?

I know that the idea that the universe shows "the hallmarks of design" is common among theists as a way of providing 'evidence' for the existence of god. But is that what made you believe that there was a creator? Or had you already been convinced by people who told you there was and simply allowed confirmation bias to lead you to the 'correct' conclusion?

if one were do the fbi profiler methodology to start with evidence and work back to the source, the God hypothesis would be a possibly since nothing would rule it out. no, it doesn't prove God, but based on the evidence the hypothesis wouldn't be eliminated. then other theories could be worked-up to be evaluated and compared.

NOPE - sorry - the problem is that YOU are attempting to substitute a "god" for a "Creator" - and those are NOT THE SAME

THere is NO need for a "god" as defined by religion as ALL EVERYTHING.
WHile it remains impossible to prove a higher power was NOT involved in the origins of the Universe - there remains NO Need for the remainder of the claims of the thiests regarding that unprovable higher power. THE Only power the "creator" would need - would be the power to initiate evolution - which science has already accepted evolution as being true.

THERE is no basis for the supernatural claims of the soul - devils - angels - hell - heaven - and the rest of the nonsense.

In fact - there is NO reason to believe that a creator STILL exists - it could have perished in the creation. AND with the need for only one power - that of creation - that eliminated the EGO MANIACAL nonsense that requires worship and adoration - which is also not supported. IF the god is perfect - it requires NO EGO support as well.

And that is where the theists have the biggest problem - connecting that possibility of a creator - to the rest of the thousands of different stories of how things happened told by different religions - because they have NO method of connecting the dots to their Fictions and MYTHS.

(December 7, 2013 at 12:21 am)snowtracks Wrote: it's abductive reasoning, it seeks to provide the most plausible broad, explanatory hypothesis but doesn't try to predict the future like inductive reasoning. for detectives - they gather evidence and develop a theory. what's your theory?

My theory, based on the evidence gathered, is that you came to the conclusion god exists and then tried to interpret the evidence in a way that allowed you to keep that conclusion, leading you to make wild, unfounded speculations like the existence of extra time dimensions. My theory says that if you want to be intellectually honest about the origins of the universe and build a working model from the ground up, the scientific evidence will lead you to the Big Bang, at which point our understanding of scientific and philosophical concepts break down, and we are left with a big, fat question mark that in no way indicates the existence of an invisible deity creating the universe with magic. What we are left with is theists putting the cart before the horse with their preconceived notions by attempting to shoehorn their god into this model with crazy conjectures and faulty philosophy.

In other words, some people, for whatever reason, either need or want a god to exist and will twist and contort the evidence in whichever way possible to fool their minds into believing they are being intellectually honest with themselves.