Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[Jesster]

And here comes William Paley's watchmaker analogy

[Astreja]

Congratulations.  How about your car? Do you design those? Do you know how it was designed?

Actually, I *do* know how it was designed.  Suffice to say that I'm well acquainted with the processes involved in the fabrication of many material things,

You will *not* make any headway on this argument by bleating "but there has to be some sort of designer," over and over and over again.  At some point you have to independently demonstrate that your designer actually exists, and until you do that, we have no reason to take you seriously.

(I am also of the opinion that in particular the god described in the Bible is automatically eliminated as a "designer" because it's just too fucking stupid.  This does not automatically eliminate all prospective designers, but your imaginary friend didn't even make it to the quarter-finals.)

[comet]

not for me.

I am not one of those that feel just because there is no omni god that there isn't something.  "lack belief" in everything is not science.

what notions can offer an explanation of what you think there is, give a mechanism, and make predictions like "dust to man"?  what about the system we live in?

omni god never has to come up.

[LadyForCamus]

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.

Are you suggesting that there does not exist physical, observable, testable, repeatable evidence demonstrating how computers are designed, lol?

---

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.

But if you WANTED to learn how your car was designed you could, because the science and technology actually exist. The mechanisms of said design are reproducible and demonstrable. They have been studied, tested, improved upon, taught, implemented, and...surprise! You drive a car along with the rest of us. Your analogy is...not a good one.

[Whateverist]

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 .. BY GOD!!

Fixed that for you (my bold).

---

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.

The car and computer are manmade so obviously they are either designed or just thrown together in slipshod fashion. But cells and multicellular anatomy are not manmade. I think the contrast you're looking for is between manmade and naturally occurring. Only manmade things and items fashioned by other organisms are 'designed', the rest is naturally occurring - no assembly required!

[LadyForCamus]

And here comes William Paley's watchmaker analogy

It's almost as if we've heard all this before, isn't it?!   

[brewer]

bold mine

And the inference? We don't know enough, therefore design. We are uncomfortable with we don't know, therefore design. I can't think for myself, therefore design.

Oh, wait, fantasy delusion can explain anything and everything. OOOOhhhhh baby, now that's the stuff!

Is this a strawman... or just self reflection?

Nope to either. Just trying to guess what your "inference" is. You conveniently left that part out.

[LadyForCamus]

I couldn't care less if it's designed. If I did really think some stupid bastard was responsible for how life has ended up on this planet, the last thing I'd do is worship it. I'd start with a good few hours of pointing and laughing.

What exactly would the scientific community, or anyone, gain from the conclusion "It's designed"? Science is about results. You can't do shit with that. You certainly can't test for it, because no criteria are ever put forward. We need an objective way of distinguishing "designed" life from "non-designed".

Life is how it is, regardless of how it got here. And we're studying it just fine without needing a magic origin story.

---

Also...


Why are people spouting all this on an atheist (not even science) forum, instead of collecting their acclaim for finding damning problems in one of the most well established scientific theories of all time? It's like bragging about your winning lottery ticket on a windmill forum instead of cashing it.

1. If you are pointing and laughing, then you must not realize how impressive the organisms are on the molecular and cellular level. You don't care about the fact that most of your genes can be transcribed forward and backwards to produce different products. You don't care that your RNA can be differentially spliced or edited to produce functional variation. You don't care that your cells can release compounds in vesicles that can travel throughout the body to communicate with other cells. You don't care that you have a blood brain barrier to protect your most valuable organ from environmental stressors. You don't care about the intricate signal transduction pathways that allow you to respond to exquisitely precise stimuli. You don't care that your phenotype is flexible based on changes in transcription. You don't care that your billions of neurons have traveled so specific targets during their development all based largely on calcium concentration and the post synaptic membrane protein composition. You don't care that fruits and vegetables contain antioxidants to limit DNA damage, chelators to prevent metal toxicity, hormone like molecules to enhance cellular function, and common sugars and nutrients to provide energy. None of this matters to you. All you care about is that your esophagus is near your trachea.

And the deep reverance and awe that you feel (and justifiably so) for these beautifully intricate and complex workings of microbiology have lead you to:  "I simply can't imagine or understand how these things could have come about without an intelligent agent - therefore, design."

You can stamp your feet about it all you want, but it's still an argument from personal incredulity; totally lacking in any positive evidence for an actual design, or your assumed designer/s.

[RoadRunner79]

---

    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.

Ok... I agree.  Admittedly, I wasn't following much prior to my entry into the thread, so I cannot comment, but am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on this.

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.

Ok... but I don't think that given something which we have not seen, that we cannot make an inference as to a cause sufficient to produce the effect.   Given that an intelligent cause more closely resembles what is seen, rather than an unguided cause, I do think that it is more reasonable move towards an intelligent cause (albeit with capabilities beyond our experience) rather than the other way.  Similarly, if a force is required to be sufficient for the effect unlike we have ever seen, rather than pose a known but insufficient cause, I think that reason demands we posit a force greater than what is known (even if what we know about it is limited).

I do think that you are confusing falsification of the theory of I.D. with relying on the inadequacy of evolution and abiogenesis.  Falsification does rely on the things that can falsify the claim; to not be true.  It is part of the nature and power of the ideology.  However the claims of intelligent design are not just about the inadequacy of those other things you mentioned.   Showing those mechanisms to be false, does not mean that it is intelligently designed (according to the theory).  And contrary to your prior claim, the theory of intelligent design does look to pinpoint characteristics, which are evident of design.  That is specified complexity, irreducible complexity, and fine tuning.   See this link for more:  http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#tautol  Natural forces produce effects that are highly specified, but not very complex.   Chance produces, results that may be complex, but are not specified.  To achieve something which is complex and specified with a large enough search space, requires choice especially within a restricted time frame.

There is a reason why many biologist and astronomers mention the appearance of design in nature...   Why is it so crazy, to think that among these many divergent examples, that they likely are designed?   I.D. looks to put a mathematical model and testable system in place to this instinct of design.  I think that those who oppose need to make some positive claims, to why we should ignore that which appears evident.

[Chas]

And I don't think that you can just credit the crowning achievements of biologists to the theory of evolution. The fact is that the theory results in many similar predictions that one would make from design. We also don't know how quickly science would progress if people had design as their point of reference. It may be faster.

The theory of evolution explains complexity in a simpler fashion than does your idea of design. It does not require a designer.

You have no evidence of a designer. Until you do, your argument is specious.

Again, you don't seem to grasp how evolution works.

Do you think that poor diet/lifestyle has a genetic basis that is acted upon by natural selection?

It absolutely does,

Unsupported assertion.

but that's not even what I was trying to convey.

What were you trying to convey?

We are less susceptible to diseases and infections if we eat plant based foods and exercise.

Unsupported assertion.
Eating meat is a more efficient means of nutrition than a purely plant-based diet. We have evolved as omnivores.

Therefore, those who do not live this healthy lifestyle are more likely to be removed by the purifying force that is infection. At least this is a possibility.

Purifying force? Are you serious?