So your an Athiest

[ApeNotKillApe]

Well I don't think that it is an argument form ignorance or a God of the gaps way of thinking. I think there is positive evidence for design, not just the absence of evidence for a naturalistic explanation. If you saw a stone with carvings on it and someone offered that the carvings were produced by intelligence, it is illogical to tell them "you're wrong, we just have to figure out how they got there by natural means."

In that analogy, the carvings are the product of an intelligent creature, in this case, a higher primate, a multi cellular organism, a product of nature. 


 

I think intelligent design is evident in the many examples of complex molecular interactions in the cell. We have many complex structures that we cannot live without. They had to appear in fully functional form at one time in order to be selected for, yet mutation is incapable of producing such rapid changes. In other words, we cannot trace our evolution backwards because we run into problems when we have incomplete molecular structures that would keep the population from surviving and reproducing.

The only reasonable conclusion is that it's all the work of a giant wizard.

I would definitely agree that the universe is an inhospitable place in general. That is one of the reasons that our planet is so unique. This is just a thought, but maybe the universe was created this way so that we would realize how uncommon our planet is.

The cosmos does indeed provide an object lesson in just how amazingly unlikely my own existence is, however when you put forward the idea that it was all done on purpose, the wonder totally vanishes. I'm left to question why an intelligent creator would fill the universe with water just so he could watch the thirsty not drink it.

As for defining God, I told you right off the bat that I just think evidence points to an intelligent mind. I said that we have no way of knowing if this is "God". I happen to believe that this intelligence cause is God, so I guess I would define it as the force of intelligence that is not governed by the laws of our universe that caused our universe to come into existence.

The following is a c/p of a post I made a while ago, the questions were never addressed so I feel I may ask them again:

Concerning the Intelligent Designer: What does "planning" entail when making a cosmos? Did the designer draw up a blueprint? Or did the designer just do it all in their head? If this being is both powerful enough and intelligent enough to create the universe, did it really need to plan anything? If it's omniscient, shouldn't it already know what to do? Assuming it's a God did it, would it not have done everything instantly? What was the designer doing with itself before the space time continuum? If it was indeed planning the universe prior to the creation, how did it go about doing that without time or cause and effect? How do you proceed through the cosmos-making process (or literally any process) before cause and effect? It doesn't make sense, God would need to create time before proceeding with temporal activities. Wouldn't God have done everything right at the very first instant of time? Wouldn't that be the only TIME God could do it? At the first instant of time? Wouldn't the universe have begun at the same moment as God? Otherwise, how did God exist before it had made existence?

[AAA]

No, I meant this solar system. Would not be surprised. I find the prospect of microscopic life in the clouds of Venus intriguing for example, and it isn't off the table.  

I have no knowledge of biology, and no interest. I have heard of organic molecules being formed from inorganic. I have heard mechanisms for abiogenesis, and that is enough to counter the "only through intelligent agency" claim.  If all the pieces aren't in a line yet so what? Enough are still in place to make the intervention of an intelligent agent unnecessary.

 Ok, well I highly doubt we find life in this solar system. Also, you said multiple times that I am arguing from ignorance. Then you say that you are content accepting the proposed models for abiogenesis when all of them that I am aware of have serious problems. If you know of a model that actually looks like it may work, then please share it with me.
Also don't you think that if we see information and highly specific forces at work in the universe that the default position should be that it was designed that way. I think this is where we are disagreeing, but I think we should be able to get to the same conclusion if we put presuppositions aside.

[Mr.wizard]

Are you not responding to me because of my potty mouth?  Oh well.

Sorry, I just didn't see your response. And I know it seems strange, but nothing bringing everything into existence also sounds strange. No matter what answers the question of the origin of matter time and energy is, it is bound to seem strange. I simply think that life and the universe reflects an intelligent designer rather than random chance.

What do you mean by "nothing"? Can you describe a state of nothingness? Do you have examples of nothing? If not then how can make any assumptions of what nothing can do or what nothing can produce?

[AAA]

Well I don't think that it is an argument form ignorance or a God of the gaps way of thinking. I think there is positive evidence for design, not just the absence of evidence for a naturalistic explanation. If you saw a stone with carvings on it and someone offered that the carvings were produced by intelligence, it is illogical to tell them "you're wrong, we just have to figure out how they got there by natural means."

In that analogy, the carvings are the product of an intelligent creature, in this case, a higher primate, a multi cellular organism, a product of nature. 


 

I think intelligent design is evident in the many examples of complex molecular interactions in the cell. We have many complex structures that we cannot live without. They had to appear in fully functional form at one time in order to be selected for, yet mutation is incapable of producing such rapid changes. In other words, we cannot trace our evolution backwards because we run into problems when we have incomplete molecular structures that would keep the population from surviving and reproducing.

The only reasonable conclusion is that it's all the work of a giant wizard.

I would definitely agree that the universe is an inhospitable place in general. That is one of the reasons that our planet is so unique. This is just a thought, but maybe the universe was created this way so that we would realize how uncommon our planet is.

The cosmos does indeed provide an object lesson in just how amazingly unlikely my own existence is, however when you put forward the idea that it was all done on purpose, the wonder totally vanishes. I'm left to question why an intelligent creator would fill the universe with water just so he could watch the thirsty not drink it.

As for defining God, I told you right off the bat that I just think evidence points to an intelligent mind. I said that we have no way of knowing if this is "God". I happen to believe that this intelligence cause is God, so I guess I would define it as the force of intelligence that is not governed by the laws of our universe that caused our universe to come into existence.

The following is a c/p of a post I made a while ago, the questions were never addressed so I feel I may ask them again:

Concerning the Intelligent Designer: What does "planning" entail when making a cosmos? Did the designer draw up a blueprint? Or did the designer just do it all in their head? If this being is both powerful enough and intelligent enough to create the universe, did it really need to plan anything? If it's omniscient, shouldn't it already know what to do? Assuming it's a God did it, would it not have done everything instantly? What was the designer doing with itself before the space time continuum? If it was indeed planning the universe prior to the creation, how did it go about doing that without time or cause and effect? How do you proceed through the cosmos-making process (or literally any process) before cause and effect? It doesn't make sense, God would need to create time before proceeding with temporal activities. Wouldn't God have done everything right at the very first instant of time? Wouldn't that be the only TIME God could do it? At the first instant of time? Wouldn't the universe have begun at the same moment as God? Otherwise, how did God exist before it had made existence?

Ok, lets see if I can get to all the points. You say that the multicellular organism that made the carving is a product of nature. That is just an assertion, and I think the theory of evolution has a lot of issues and I think that life was created by intelligence directly (I'm not saying it was 6000 years ago in a garden, I just think that is what biological evidence shows).

You calling the intelligent force a giant wizard is an oversimplification. The argument is that when we see complex information systems, the default conclusion should be that intelligence played a role in its origin.

I'm not sure if you're wondering why people are suffering from thirst? Environments aren't perfect, but evidence shows that dry areas were typically more lush in the past. The fossil record even shows trees and other plant life in Antarctica. The idea that things were better in the past and are slowly degrading is more consistent with the idea of intelligent design than it is with the theory of evolution.

Your last paragraph asks a lot of good questions. I don't know the answer to most of those question, and I don't know how I could find out. The time issue is interesting, but not new. It could be that time is simply not required to do things as we think it does. Or perhaps the intelligent force resides in a place that operates under different conditions.

---

Sorry, I just didn't see your response. And I know it seems strange, but nothing bringing everything into existence also sounds strange. No matter what answers the question of the origin of matter time and energy is, it is bound to seem strange. I simply think that life and the universe reflects an intelligent designer rather than random chance.

What do you mean by "nothing"? Can you describe a state of nothingness? Do you have examples of nothing? If not then how can make any assumptions of what nothing can do or what nothing can produce?

Nothing would be the absence of matter, energy, or time. But I'm not the one who believes that nothing has creative properties. It is irrational to think that nothing can produce everything. It seems like a reasonable assumption that the universe required some form of energy to be formed. I think I can safely say that nothing does not have that capability.

[Mr.wizard]

What do you mean by "nothing"? Can you describe a state of nothingness? Do you have examples of nothing? If not then how can make any assumptions of what nothing can do or what nothing can produce?

Nothing would be the absence of matter, energy, or time. But I'm not the one who believes that nothing has creative properties. It is irrational to think that nothing can produce everything. It seems like a reasonable assumption that the universe required some form of energy to be formed. I think I can safely say that nothing does not have that capability.
[/quote]

Your argument is one big argument from ignorance. You don't see how evolution and abiogenesis can work without a designer, therefore they are flawed. You assert this state of nothingness that you can't possibly know even exists, or that the universe even existed in that state.

Also, even if evolution and abiogenesis where proven false it wouldn't make your designer any more probable.

[Whateverist]

I know it seems strange, but nothing bringing everything into existence also sounds strange. No matter what answers the question of the origin of matter time and energy is, it is bound to seem strange. I simply think that life and the universe reflects an intelligent designer rather than random chance.

Have you ever considered that there was never an absolute nothing? If you believe there was always an intelligent designer in existence you don't believe there was ever an absolute nothing anymore than I do. I just think that what we see now comes from what there was before .. all the way back. We don't know anywhere close to all the causal connections. No one does. That doesn't mean there had to be a magic genie. To make that the centerpiece of your theory of everything doesn't show much real regard for getting it right.

[ApeNotKillApe]

---

In that analogy, the carvings are the product of an intelligent creature, in this case, a higher primate, a multi cellular organism, a product of nature. 


 


The only reasonable conclusion is that it's all the work of a giant wizard.


The cosmos does indeed provide an object lesson in just how amazingly unlikely my own existence is, however when you put forward the idea that it was all done on purpose, the wonder totally vanishes. I'm left to question why an intelligent creator would fill the universe with water just so he could watch the thirsty not drink it.




The following is a c/p of a post I made a while ago, the questions were never addressed so I feel I may ask them again:

Concerning the Intelligent Designer: What does "planning" entail when making a cosmos? Did the designer draw up a blueprint? Or did the designer just do it all in their head? If this being is both powerful enough and intelligent enough to create the universe, did it really need to plan anything? If it's omniscient, shouldn't it already know what to do? Assuming it's a God did it, would it not have done everything instantly? What was the designer doing with itself before the space time continuum? If it was indeed planning the universe prior to the creation, how did it go about doing that without time or cause and effect? How do you proceed through the cosmos-making process (or literally any process) before cause and effect? It doesn't make sense, God would need to create time before proceeding with temporal activities. Wouldn't God have done everything right at the very first instant of time? Wouldn't that be the only TIME God could do it? At the first instant of time? Wouldn't the universe have begun at the same moment as God? Otherwise, how did God exist before it had made existence?

---

Ok, lets see if I can get to all the points. You say that the multicellular organism that made the carving is a product of nature. That is just an assertion, and I think the theory of evolution has a lot of issues and I think that life was created by intelligence directly (I'm not saying it was 6000 years ago in a garden, I just think that is what biological evidence shows).

Are you saying cellular life doesn't occur within nature?

Here is nature:



I'm sure you have no issue seeing the cellular life, unnatural as it is.

You calling the intelligent force a giant wizard is an oversimplification.

I'll have you know my thesis, 'Bow before the Great Giant Wizard of Sa'aloth, holder of the Seven Keys and Lord of the Time Palace' earned me a theoretical degree in quantum physics, thank you very much.

The argument is that when we see complex information systems, the default conclusion should be that intelligence played a role in its origin.

Those systems of information are created by intelligent humans, so yes, you are correct.

I'm not sure if you're wondering why people are suffering from thirst? Environments aren't perfect, but evidence shows that dry areas were typically more lush in the past. The fossil record even shows trees and other plant life in Antarctica. The idea that things were better in the past and are slowly degrading is more consistent with the idea of intelligent design than it is with the theory of evolution.

A smarter man might have noticed that you completely avoided addressing my point and went off on an irrelevant tangent. Lucky for you I'm not that smart, eh?

Your last paragraph asks a lot of good questions. I don't know the answer to most of those question, and I don't know how I could find out. The time issue is interesting, but not new. It could be that time is simply not required to do things as we think it does. Or perhaps the intelligent force resides in a place that operates under different conditions.

Or maybe it was the lizard people.

[AAA]

Ok, lets see if I can get to all the points. You say that the multicellular organism that made the carving is a product of nature. That is just an assertion, and I think the theory of evolution has a lot of issues and I think that life was created by intelligence directly (I'm not saying it was 6000 years ago in a garden, I just think that is what biological evidence shows).

Are you saying cellular life doesn't occur within nature?

Here is nature:



I'm sure you have no issue seeing the cellular life, unnatural as it is.

You calling the intelligent force a giant wizard is an oversimplification.

I'll have you know my thesis, 'Bow before the Giant Wizard of Sa'aloth, holder of the Seven Keys and Lord of the Time Palace' thesis earned me a theoretical degree in quantum physics, thank you very much.

The argument is that when we see complex information systems, the default conclusion should be that intelligence played a role in its origin.

Those systems of information are created by intelligent humans, so yes, you are correct.

I'm not sure if you're wondering why people are suffering from thirst? Environments aren't perfect, but evidence shows that dry areas were typically more lush in the past. The fossil record even shows trees and other plant life in Antarctica. The idea that things were better in the past and are slowly degrading is more consistent with the idea of intelligent design than it is with the theory of evolution.

A smarter man might have noticed that you completely avoided addressing my point and went off on an irrelevant tangent. Lucky for you I'm not that smart, eh?

Your last paragraph asks a lot of good questions. I don't know the answer to most of those question, and I don't know how I could find out. The time issue is interesting, but not new. It could be that time is simply not required to do things as we think it does. Or perhaps the intelligent force resides in a place that operates under different conditions.

Or maybe it was the lizard people.

No, I did not mean to imply that cellular life does not occur in nature, I'm not sure how you got that. I'm just saying I don't think the origin of cellular life falls under your definition of nature.

I can't tell if that was a joke, but if not congratulations on your degree, but it's still an oversimplification. I'm sure you gave a more technical description in your paper. All I'm saying is that it seems clear that intelligence played a part in the formation of the universe and life. Intelligence is the only quality that I am giving this entity. If you want to give him qualities of a wizard, go ahead, but I don't think there is evidence of that.

The complex information systems I was talking about was the information system of DNA, and the molecular specificity of the proteins that interact with it. So yes we should assume a designer when the natural explanations fall short (this doesn't mean we can't still look for natural explanations).

I wasn't trying to bypass your point, I guess I just didn't understand it. Is it "Why is water so abundant in the universe, while there are people dying of thirst here?" If so then my answer would be that fusion within stars leads to large amounts of hydrogen and oxygen in space. These react to form water. As for our planet, it is covered in water. Over time water inevitably becomes more acidic and increases in salinity as it obtains minerals from land. Again it fits that our planet was more habitable in the past and is slowly getting worse.

Maybe it was lizard people, but they were very very smart.

---

I know it seems strange, but nothing bringing everything into existence also sounds strange. No matter what answers the question of the origin of matter time and energy is, it is bound to seem strange. I simply think that life and the universe reflects an intelligent designer rather than random chance.

Have you ever considered that there was never an absolute nothing?  If you believe there was always an intelligent designer in existence you don't believe there was ever an absolute nothing anymore than I do.  I just think that what we see now comes from what there was before .. all the way back.  We don't know anywhere close to all the causal connections.  No one does.  That doesn't mean there had to be a magic genie.  To make that the centerpiece of your theory of everything doesn't show much real regard for getting it right.

Well it isn't easy to try to have a discussion on what there was before the universe that we can observe. You seem to think that an intelligent designer is illogical. I have a hypothetical scenario: if we one day created a computer simulation program that had conscious beings, and these beings started to realize that the space that they live in only works if the parameters to make the computer program work at very specific values. They then learn of their own complexity and begin to examine the digital code that makes up themselves. Is it irrational for them to conclude that they are living in a space that was designed?

This scenario is not so hypothetical. It is exactly the situation we are in.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Are you not responding to me because of my potty mouth?  Oh well.

Sorry, I just didn't see your response. And I know it seems strange, but nothing bringing everything into existence also sounds strange. No matter what answers the question of the origin of matter time and energy is, it is bound to seem strange. I simply think that life and the universe reflects an intelligent designer rather than random chance.

Those who study biology and paleobiology have an answer to that, and it's not written in an old abook, it's told by observable fact. They observe how life evolved from the bottom up - for example, the eye began very simple in creatures which we are genetically linked to, as a simple photo-sensitive spot as a useful accident of reproduction. Subsequent generations made sight more complex in animals when such deviations, in ecologically stressful conditions. There is no evidence for design, only the cobbling up and occasional retrofitting of traits which were at some point useful, and eventual (but not timely) dumping of traits which are of no use (we've still got that damned appendix). It's undeniable that it's a bottom-up series of events, much the opposite of the top-down format which is required in all manner of "design". If you were paid as an engineer to design the human body, we would have to be a lot more sensibly and efficiently designed than we are now, or you would be out of a job! Sorry, but the more you look at that idea of design behind what life actually is on this planet, the much less it makes any sense.

Hey, Yahweh - YER FIIIIIRED!!!

[Whateverist]

I don't think so. That was the Matrix, a movie. It is a fanciful idea and nothing more.