Intelligent Design

[Simon Moon]

The God claims are based on the presence of qualities only known to be the product of a designing intelligence found in cells and the universe. We don't jump to God directly from this though. Just that they are best explained as the product of intelligence.

Only when your main arguments are argument from ignorance ("I can't figure out how these things could have come about via natural mechanisms, therefore it must have been my god") and argument from analogy ("this thing in the cell sure looks like a complex machine, therefore it must have been designed") does a magic being, that lives in a realm that can't be shown to exist, become the best explanation.

Complexity and function are not a sign of design.

[The Valkyrie]

You don't need to see it, you need clear evidence of it.

Millions of people claim to have been abducted by aliens. 

The point being, why believe ANYTHING on a claim, without evidence?

I guess you don't have to believe anything just on a claim, but I personally don't think it is a good life philosophy to require evidence for everything. If someone you know tells you they got a new TV, would you demand to go to their house before you would believe them? If people have no motive to lie, then we don't need to require them to justify every single claim they have. Still I think that if we go with the alien example, and everyone but you claimed to have been abducted, you would eventually have to concede that there is some phenomenon behind it, even if they didn't have material evidence. The eye witness is definitely weak evidence, but it shouldn't just be dismissed.

There's a major difference in someone claiming to have a new TV, someone claiming to have been abducted by aliens, and someone who wants not just themselves, but everyone else, to believe and live by what they believe, and who want to force those beliefs to be taught as fact in schools.

[Whateverist]

The eye witness is definitely weak evidence, but it shouldn't just be dismissed.

Unless of course they claim to have witnessed extraordinary things.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'll put this in the form of a question since I got nada when I left it as a response.

Trips...when you come upon a meadow...do you feel that the best explanation for the existence of that meadow, is that someone planted those flowers?

[AAA]

I first thought of it when I watched a documentary on UFOs. There are alleged claims (no I can't prove these to be true) of military fighter jets tracking UFOs, and having them on radar, and then the UFOs disappearing off of the radar, indicating that it was no longer there. Also, many "supernatural phenomena" could be explained by this, such as claims of ghostly figures appearing in our 3D realm, then disappearing. Obviously I know that almost all UFOs and supernatural claims have other explanations, but for the remaining ones, I just thought that a higher dimension could explain how they could allegedly enter our reality and leave it that quickly. I then thought that it could maybe apply to God as well. Capable of being literally right next to you just outside of our dimension, similar to the way a 3D creature (us) could be infinitely close to a 2D realm, and observe 2D creatures without them detecting us. This is JUST A THOUGHT. 

Prediction: People are going to rip this comment apart demanding proof.

Hey - there's only room for one prophet around here! Work the other side of the street!

In fact, I don't see any value in asking - let alone "demanding" - proof (or even evidence - learn the difference) for unfalsifiable things. I was just going to point out that positing a less-credible and unprovable explanation than rather more mundane yet plausible ones isn't a particularly tenable approach to discerning reality, that's all. Basically, when you hear hoofbeats, first eliminate horses (not literally, in a weird Equus kind of way) before concluding unicorns.

Right, but what happens in instances where you eliminate every known hooved animal? You then have to start to think outside the box, and suppose it may be explained by something we have not yet seen. But yes, I agree we should turn known causes before we turn to things that we don't know can cause it.

[AAA]

The eye witness is definitely weak evidence, but it shouldn't just be dismissed.

Unless of course they claim to have witnessed extraordinary things.

Well, I still don't know that you just dismiss the claims. I mean what would you do if tomorrow Richard Dawkins decided to become a Christian after claiming that God talked to him the night before? Would you dismiss him? Very credible people sometimes claim to have seen extraordinary things.

[The Grand Nudger]

I would, you know why?  There is no atheist priesthood. An alien concept, obviously, since you chose to make that comment...but there it is. To be brutally honest, I'd dismiss christianity even if christ himself appeared on my couch.

[AAA]

I'll put this in the form of a question since I got nada when I left it as a response.

Trips...when you come upon a meadow...do you feel that the best explanation for the existence of that meadow, is that someone planted those flowers?

No, because we have observed meadows coming into existence without the aid of an intelligence before.

[AAA]

I guess you don't have to believe anything just on a claim, but I personally don't think it is a good life philosophy to require evidence for everything. If someone you know tells you they got a new TV, would you demand to go to their house before you would believe them? If people have no motive to lie, then we don't need to require them to justify every single claim they have. Still I think that if we go with the alien example, and everyone but you claimed to have been abducted, you would eventually have to concede that there is some phenomenon behind it, even if they didn't have material evidence. The eye witness is definitely weak evidence, but it shouldn't just be dismissed.

There's a major difference in someone claiming to have a new TV, someone claiming to have been abducted by aliens, and someone who wants not just themselves, but everyone else, to believe and live by what they believe, and who want to force those beliefs to be taught as fact in schools.

I don't think that intelligent design should be taught in school, I just think that the problems with evolution should be taught too. Also I think that discussing the possibility of intelligent design in school should not be prohibited.

[AAA]

I would, you know why?  There is no atheist priesthood.  An alien concept, obviously, since you chose to make that comment...but there it is.  To be brutally honest, I'd dismiss christianity even if christ himself appeared on my couch.

That doesn't surprise me. Can I ask why nothing could convince you of Christianity?