Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[Mudhammam]

Considering theists generally already make the first assumption, I don't know what else needs to be said.

I didn't read through all of his rabble but given my experience of ID arguments, I presume that his, like most of them, is something along the following lines:

P1. Creation rationally requires a Creator just as Information rationally requires Intelligence.
P2. Creation contains Information.
C. We are thus rationally required to posit the existence of an Intelligent Creator.

... How close did I come?

[comet]

delusion doesn't explain it, there is to many.

it must be a misunderstanding more than anything else.

[robvalue]

Considering theists generally already make the first assumption, I don't know what else needs to be said.

I didn't read through all of his rabble but given my experience of ID arguments, I presume that his, like most of them, is something along the following lines:

P1. Creation rationally requires a Creator just as Information rationally requires Intelligence.
P2. Creation contains Information.
C. We are thus rationally required to posit the existence of an Intelligent Creator.  

... How close did I come?

You have gone a bit above and beyond there

It's more like this:

Stuff looks designed to me, therefor it's designed.

[The Grand Nudger]

What would convince you of a designing intelligence? If God spoke to you right now, you would accept that you were hallucinating rather than deviate from your bais.

Easy question.  Evidence of a designing intelligence.  The world is full of them...so it should be easy. Ready, set, go!

The argument from ignorance, is assuming ones position, until it is shown to be false.  (which I might add, appears to be what your are doing).  It is a form of shifting the burden of proof.

I.D. does give positive reasons, why choice; and therefore an intelligent designer better explains the evidence.  It is not just, we don't know, therefore it must be designed!  It is relying on what we do know to make an inference.

Strange, because it seems to be an issue of denying everything we know, for no apparent reason, at least in his version of ID, lol.  Maybe you could present a better argument than Trips?  One that relies on what we know, one that makes an inference?

[AAA]

That's what the word known is there for.

Textbook definition of the argument from ignorance fallacy.

How does it feel to base your ID belief on an ever receding pocket of ignorance?

I don't see a receding pocket of ignorance, I see a continuous decline in possible alternative explanations.

---

I'm not really bothered or surprised by the hateful nature of the comments. I'm disappointed that the hateful comments are basically what you come to when you don't want to address the argument. Specifically you LadyforCamus just insult. You have never attempted to deal with the argument. It's hard to argue with atheists considering that so many of you are unwilling to consider anyone else worthy of your precious intellect.

---

That's what the word known is there for.

Oh, I most certainly have!  As I said...go back and re-read through the endless pages of your own past threads, and perhaps refresh your memory.  

It's as I said before:  the ID "argument" is NOT an argument.  You have never once produced a shred of evidence demonstrating the mechanisms by which your designer has accomplished his design, not to mention an explanation for who or what this designer is, and by what facts and evidence you came to those conclusions.  When you can bring those things to the table, you have an argument for which I may choose to participate in.  Until then, I'm not going to waste time pointing out fallacies that have been pointed out to you time and time again.  

I don't have to provide a mechanism by which the designer designed the system. Given that logic, you do not believe that your computer was designed, because you almost certainly do not know how they did it.

[robvalue]

Can life exist that wasn't designed by another life form?

Yes: Fine. Let's keep searching for answers to abiogenesis, and consider all new evidence as it comes in regarding our origins. No need to jump to conclusions about "design".

No: You have to accept an infinite regression of "designers".

Of course, we all know you're talking about "God" and not just some generic designer, and that you'll use special pleading to remove the rules from him that you demand are placed on everything else.

Life evolves all the time without design. New species emerge, without our intervention. If we're not talking about new species, then we're merely talking about abiogenesis, which is nothing to do with evolution. So all the "problems" with the ToE become irrelevant. Again, I have no idea where these guys think the design stage was, further than the initial design of our reality that they already assume. A dude who sets things in motion (billions of years ago) is consistent with what we observe (although not necessary). A dude who keeps coming down from somewhere to "design" new life forms by magic or something is not.

[Angrboda]

Textbook definition of the argument from ignorance fallacy.

How does it feel to base your ID belief on an ever receding pocket of ignorance?

    You want him to eliminate the unknown now....



The argument from ignorance, is assuming ones position, until it is shown to be false.  (which I might add, appears to be what your are doing).  It is a form of shifting the burden of proof.

It also includes the reverse, arguing that something is false until proven true, which is what he's doing.

I.D. does give positive reasons, why choice; and therefore an intelligent designer better explains the evidence.  It is not just, we don't know, therefore it must be designed!  It is relying on what we do know to make an inference.

In giving those reasons one is postulating something that hasn't been seen. We do not have sufficient intelligence to design a life form. So what you must mean are that the effects seen in the operation of our intelligence are in identifiable ways the same as the effects produced in a cell. You don't have a consistent, methodical way for pinpointing that, either. You have no way of identifying that an artifact was the process of design from the description of the artifact alone. So your positive evidence turns out to be no evidence at all. Your positive evidence turns out to be a bluff. Moreover the inference to design is relying on the inadequacy of evolution and abiogenesis to explain things as the key piece of evidence supporting the inference to design. That's not positive evidence either.

[Astreja]

I don't have to provide a mechanism by which the designer designed the system. Given that logic, you do not believe that your computer was designed, because you almost certainly do not know how they did it.

Well, seeing as I've programmed computers and built and rebuilt computers and installed PROMs in computers and soldered computer components and etched circuit boards and attended an Intel seminar on the 8086 microprocessor, I'm calling argumentum ex rectum on your attempt to dodge the burden of proof in this instance.

[comet]

Textbook definition of the argument from ignorance fallacy.

How does it feel to base your ID belief on an ever receding pocket of ignorance?

I don't see a receding pocket of ignorance, I see a continuous decline in possible alternative explanations.

---

Oh, I most certainly have!  As I said...go back and re-read through the endless pages of your own past threads, and perhaps refresh your memory.  

It's as I said before:  the ID "argument" is NOT an argument.  You have never once produced a shred of evidence demonstrating the mechanisms by which your designer has accomplished his design, not to mention an explanation for who or what this designer is, and by what facts and evidence you came to those conclusions.  When you can bring those things to the table, you have an argument for which I may choose to participate in.  Until then, I'm not going to waste time pointing out fallacies that have been pointed out to you time and time again.  

I don't have to provide a mechanism by which the designer designed the system. Given that logic, you do not believe that your computer was designed, because you almost certainly do not know how they did it.

beliefs that provide a mechanism and prediction are more valid then those that don't and "lack belief".

[AAA]

I don't have to provide a mechanism by which the designer designed the system. Given that logic, you do not believe that your computer was designed, because you almost certainly do not know how they did it.

Well, seeing as I've programmed computers and built and rebuilt computers and installed PROMs in computers and soldered computer components and etched circuit boards and attended an Intel seminar on the 8086 microprocessor, I'm calling argumentum ex rectum on your attempt to dodge the burden of proof in this instance.

Congratulations.  How about your car? Do you design those? Do you know how it was designed? The point is that we don't have to know how something was designed to rationally infer that it was.

---

I don't see a receding pocket of ignorance, I see a continuous decline in possible alternative explanations.

---

I don't have to provide a mechanism by which the designer designed the system. Given that logic, you do not believe that your computer was designed, because you almost certainly do not know how they did it.

beliefs that provide a mechanism and prediction are more valid then those that don't and "lack belief".

Well I could put forth a mechanism, but I have no way of knowing if it's right. The designer linked nucleotides together in a laboratory, then built enzymes by ligating amino acids. Then the designer surrounded it with a phospholipid bylayer and let it go. 

Just as it is impossible for me to know the mechanism of design, it is impossible for you to tell me the order of mutations that have led to your genome. The question you guys are demanding an answer to is impossible. How could we ever assess that type of historical claim.