Atheism vs. God's Existence

[AAA]

No, but you say it doesn't contain features of design. Then I ask what features could it have that would make it count as design and you refuse to give some. Do you want it to have the ability to communicate using electrical signals? Do you want it to be able to repair itself? Do you want it to read an information dense code? Oh wait, it does all those things. Just tell me one characteristic of a designed sytems that life doesn't have

You're the one trying to make a case for design. You supply the evidence. See, it's not up to me to make your case for you and then refute it.

Are you afraid to mention a quality because you're afraid they might have it and you're just not aware of it?

[RozKek]

I believed in god, I started searching for evidence, found none, the end.

[Pat Mustard]

Ugh...what is their end game then, if it's intentional?  In AAA's case, is it just to stir the pot for the fun of it?  Or do you think he actually believes he can sucker someone into believing?

Part of it is simply fooling themselves. They work in small social circles of like-minded persons, and they repeat something "around the circle" until everyone THEY know agrees with it, so Therefore It Must Be True™. This is commonly found in religion-based universities, but is not unique to them. After a while, they think they represent a valid counter-view because they've managed to block out the counter-narrative. [Edit to Add: The "counter-narrative" here being the actual, primary narrative that they're trying to block. Sorry for the poor phrasing!]

And it gets worse, there is lots of evidence to show that once you come to a belief, then even being shown evidence opposing your belief (even to the level of discrediting it like AAA's beloved creatardism) will push you to more extreme and strident holding of that belief. There is a stage where nothing will shift you from a wrong belief. Here's a good article on the phenomenon in a political context.

I honestly think that AAA is at this stage with respect to ID and creatardism, and no amount of the rest of us pointing out the sheer ridiculousness of his arguments or the wrongness of his beliefs is going to change them. He has taken on his beliefs too strongly, invested too much emotional effort into them and has owned them so totally that any challenge no matter how well argued or cited is going to do anything but strengthen his wrong belief.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Well that's depressing.

[Cyberman]

You're the one trying to make a case for design. You supply the evidence. See, it's not up to me to make your case for you and then refute it.

Are you afraid to mention a quality because you're afraid they might have it and you're just not aware of it?

You're the prosecution. I'm the jury. Make your case and I'll consider it.

[AAA]

No, but you say it doesn't contain features of design. Then I ask what features could it have that would make it count as design and you refuse to give some. Do you want it to have the ability to communicate using electrical signals? Do you want it to be able to repair itself? Do you want it to read an information dense code? Oh wait, it does all those things. Just tell me one characteristic of a designed sytems that life doesn't have

I don't know what features you'd expect to find that would count as evidence of design, since for there to be actual evidence of design, we'd need to see that something tampered with the natural processes that DNA (and the related chemistry) undergoes.

ID has proposed no such mechanism. All you do is point to anything that's not yet fully understood and say, "There! There's the gap! God's in that gap!", or you try to imply that a high degree of complexity that has developed over 4 billion years can only be explained by outside intervention. There is absolutely no reason to make such an assumption, nor can I even grasp what kind of evidence you'd put forth to try to suggest it is. Saying that it appears to be too complex to have occurred naturally isn't an argument, except The Argument from Personal Incredulity, unless you can show that there's no possible way a natural mechanism could be discovered that would explain the phenomenon... Irreducible Complexity is a poor argument, especially given that all of the original IC systems pointed out by Behe (for instance) have been shown to be naturally occurring.

In that case, you'd have literally the greatest discovery in the history of science-- namely, that magic is real. Everything that occurs without magic is simply biochemistry, and thus not ID. Show me how something could meddle in the pie, and how we'd spot that, and we can talk. "Too complex" is not an answer. "Appearance of" is worse.

So we need to prove that the designer exists before we can say it may have been designed? That's illogical. There are people searching for evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence. Do they have to prove that aliens exist before we can interpret a radio transmission showing a sequence of prime numbers as having an intelligent cause? NO. 

It is only a God of the gap if you assume that your answer is correct and thus has the gaps to be filled. When you say that I have no proof that the designer exists, why can't I just say you are arguing from materialism of the gaps? 

Why is it my responsibility to show that mutation and natural selection are inadequate? Shouldn't it be their responsibility to prove that it is adequate? 

Please explain why design is magic? Did the person who designed your laptop use magic? I sort of doubt it.

[The Grand Nudger]

You need to show evidence that the -design- exists.  Try to tackle that, before you worry about proof.

Modern Synth -has been- shown to be adequate. The burden of proof was accepted, a convincing demonstration was arranged. Many, many times. But just in case...this process is still being repeated, and people are trying their damndest to tear it down.

[AAA]

Are you afraid to mention a quality because you're afraid they might have it and you're just not aware of it?

You're the prosecution. I'm the jury. Make your case and I'll consider it.

Ok, why is a system of electrical communication not considered evidence of intelligent design when the only known cause of such things is intelligence?

[AAA]

Part of it is simply fooling themselves. They work in small social circles of like-minded persons, and they repeat something "around the circle" until everyone THEY know agrees with it, so Therefore It Must Be True™. This is commonly found in religion-based universities, but is not unique to them. After a while, they think they represent a valid counter-view because they've managed to block out the counter-narrative. [Edit to Add: The "counter-narrative" here being the actual, primary narrative that they're trying to block. Sorry for the poor phrasing!]

And it gets worse, there is lots of evidence to show that once you come to a belief, then even being shown evidence opposing your belief (even to the level of discrediting it like AAA's beloved creatardism) will push you to more extreme and strident holding of that belief. There is a stage where nothing will shift you from a wrong belief. Here's a good article on the phenomenon in a political context.

I honestly think that AAA is at this stage with respect to ID and creatardism, and no amount of the rest of us pointing out the sheer ridiculousness of his arguments or the wrongness of his beliefs is going to change them. He has taken on his beliefs too strongly, invested too much emotional effort into them and has owned them so totally that any challenge no matter how well argued or cited is going to do anything but strengthen his wrong belief.

I'm glad you are immune to psychological biases constable dorfl. I am perfectly aware. I wrote like a 10 page paper on the topic of what psychological biases influence the decisions we come to this past semester for my brain and behavior class. I read The God Delusion and Signature in the Cell and compared the two. 

Nobody has shown why it is rediculous to interpret the amazing intricacy of life as the result of a mind.

[dyresand]

I'm not a designer. It's not my job to make the case for design.

No, but you say it doesn't contain features of design. Then I ask what features could it have that would make it count as design and you refuse to give some. Do you want it to have the ability to communicate using electrical signals? Do you want it to be able to repair itself? Do you want it to read an information dense code? Oh wait, it does all those things. Just tell me one characteristic of a designed sytems that life doesn't have

It would have been pretty damn bright of god if he/sh/it existed and gave us the ability to regrow limbs that would be a start.