You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
like you, i just fit my tone to that of the posters / the views they directly or indirectly endorse... no need to feel superior/inferiorQuote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
More hubris.
Who are you to say who has a higher standard? I personally don't look at any religion and say one is higher or lower, I just acknowledge that there are differences. I don't feel my beliefs are superior or inferior, they are just different.
I am saying that there are different belief systems, which appeal to different people, or are the situation due to the culture one is exposed to.
By the way, Buddhism has its focus on humanism as a path to perfection and liberation from the cycle of birth and death, not a focus on the need for God to achieve salvation or liberation. It does not make it a higher standard, just a different standard, because there is no way to make such evaluations without first knowing God. The evaluations you are making are purely secular, and as such they are a judgment from that perspective. You are of course free to do so, and it does fit with your general tone of superior/inferior point of view regarding humanity.
Different religions teach different things, and the arguments found in ET by atheist and theist are mostly west centric is the point I was making, and the arguments against God on the basis of the lack of fairness in human life are nearly wholly based on a western Judeo Christian Muslim concept of God.
good start on buddhism, although some misconceptions here... again nothing can replace a 1st-hand read, if you can make the time... difficult at first to a western mind, but rewarding... feel free not to believe of course
as to your point, all of this is essentially rooted in bivalent logic, wouldn't you agree?
Quote from Teleologist:
If someone thinks design has been established or proven simply because it âlooks that way to them,â they have obviously jumped the gun. But there is nothing wrong with the argument, âit looks designed, thus I suspect it may have been designed.â
If you were walking along the beach and saw a message written in the sand that said "John loves Mary" you would immediately infer design. Why? Why not infer that the random action of wind and/or water formed the pattern? Because it looks designed! There are other ways to put it but it all really boils down to how things look.
Many ID critics often pay tribute to the âlooks likeâ argument, as one of their main arguments against ID is that life doesnât look designed. According to them, for example, life is too sloppy, too wasteful, etc. to be designed.
But following the logic of your previous argument you wouldn't bother to look for evidence of manufacturing because if you found it then you would have to explain the origin of the entity that did the manufacturing and thus the problem of infinite regress.
It doesn't matter how it looks. It matters what evidence exists to support the hypothesis that something which looks designed, is designed.
If I walk down the beach and see John loves Mary in the sand, I "know" that what I'm seeing was designed, because I already have evidence from prior knowledge that what I'm looking at is English written in the sand the same as the myriad of other things that I have seen written in the sand over the course of my life.
Similarly, if I see a rock which looks like every other rock on the beach, and I've seen lots of other rocks like it over my life, then my reaction will be based on prior knowledge/evidence, and my conclusion will be "natural."
However, if I'm walking down the beach and I see a six-foot pyramid shaped, but rough edged, something or other half sticking out of the water, I don't "know" that this is designed, or natural because it's totally out of context. I can't conclude one way or the other -- I have no prior knowledge, so I must test it.
Whether life, or anything else "looks" designed or not is irrelevant. What matters is what scientific evidence supports either proposition.
There is no scientific evidence supporting the design of life. Therefore, life is not designed.
Please describe what constitutes scientific evidence of design.
Seems that you must know of designer in the first place according to your comments, in order to recognize something as designed.
So for recognition of design, the ability to recognize design, requires previous cognition of designer's work.
Please tell what constitutes cognition of designers work, without having knowledge of designer in the first place?
Forgive me, but you in my opinion you are producing a fallacious argument with an assumptive argument from ignorance forever resting as its foundation...
Seems that you must know of designer in the first place according to your comments, in order to recognize something as designed.
So for recognition of design, the ability to recognize design, requires previous cognition of designer's work.
Please tell what constitutes cognition of designers work, without having knowledge of designer in the first place?
Forgive me, but you in my opinion you are producing a fallacious argument with an assumptive argument from ignorance forever resting as its foundation...
Quote from kjkent1:
It doesn't matter how it looks. It matters what evidence exists to support the hypothesis that something which looks designed, is designed.
If I walk down the beach and see John loves Mary in the sand, I "know" that what I'm seeing was designed, because I already have evidence from prior knowledge that what I'm looking at is English written in the sand the same as the myriad of other things that I have seen written in the sand over the course of my life.
Similarly, if I see a rock which looks like every other rock on the beach, and I've seen lots of other rocks like it over my life, then my reaction will be based on prior knowledge/evidence, and my conclusion will be "natural."
However, if I'm walking down the beach and I see a six-foot pyramid shaped, but rough edged, something or other half sticking out of the water, I don't "know" that this is designed, or natural because it's totally out of context. I can't conclude one way or the other -- I have no prior knowledge, so I must test it.
Whether life, or anything else "looks" designed or not is irrelevant. What matters is what scientific evidence supports either proposition.
There is no scientific evidence supporting the design of life. Therefore, life is not designed.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
So for recognition of design, the ability to recognize design, requires previous cognition of designer's work.
right, and by this Zlogic, previous cognition of design would itself require pre-previous cognition of design.
Wow.
ZZZ admits that cognition of design can never be acheived!!
Thread Closed?
kjkent1 wrote;
Sure, but what if the hypothesis merely assumes something MAY be designed? Certainly if something looks designed that is evidence that it MAY be designed. Or put another way, if something looks designed that is a good reason to suspect it MAY be designed and to follow up the suspicion with an investigation. If you take away the âlooks likeâ approach, you have taken away the crucial key to any investigation.
kjkent1 wrote:
Okay, let's say you are part of a team that are the first human vistors to Mars and you find a message written in the sand. Are you going to infer an intelligent entity caused it or are you going to allow your concerns over infinite regress to thwart any inference to design?
It doesn't matter how it looks. It matters what evidence exists to support the hypothesis that something which looks designed, is designed.
Sure, but what if the hypothesis merely assumes something MAY be designed? Certainly if something looks designed that is evidence that it MAY be designed. Or put another way, if something looks designed that is a good reason to suspect it MAY be designed and to follow up the suspicion with an investigation. If you take away the âlooks likeâ approach, you have taken away the crucial key to any investigation.
kjkent1 wrote:
If I walk down the beach and see John loves Mary in the sand, I "know" that what I'm seeing was designed, because I already have evidence from prior knowledge that what I'm looking at is English written in the sand the same as the myriad of other things that I have seen written in the sand over the course of my life.
Okay, let's say you are part of a team that are the first human vistors to Mars and you find a message written in the sand. Are you going to infer an intelligent entity caused it or are you going to allow your concerns over infinite regress to thwart any inference to design?
Quote from Teleologist:
kjkent1 wrote;
Sure, but what if the hypothesis merely assumes something MAY be designed? Certainly if something looks designed that is evidence that it MAY be designed. Or put another way, if something looks designed that is a good reason to suspect it MAY be designed and to follow up the suspicion with an investigation. If you take away the âlooks likeâ approach, you have taken away the crucial key to any investigation.
Funny you should bring that up.
It "looks like" we evolved from lower primates. But there is ZERO DNA evidence (given that DNA does not survive fossilization) or any such "hard" evidence that we did (baring the Neanderthal which ahs some DNA evidence). We merely looked at bone structures and other anatomical features then made an educated guess as to the evolutionary development of our species of hominid.
In a way, you could say that understanding human evolution is somewhat of an art.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Please describe what constitutes scientific evidence of design.
Seems that you must know of designer in the first place according to your comments, in order to recognize something as designed.
So for recognition of design, the ability to recognize design, requires previous cognition of designer's work.
Please tell what constitutes cognition of designers work, without having knowledge of designer in the first place?
Forgive me, but you in my opinion you are producing a fallacious argument with an assumptive argument from ignorance forever resting as its foundation...
You mean that if someone handed you a granite block, dug out from under layers of soil which had obvious signs of not having been disturbed for ~3,000 years, carved in the shape of a tablet, with what appeared to be some sort of systematic communication burned into it (but NOT Hebrew or any other human language), all modifications to the stone apparently accomplished by an extremely high temperature lasing mechanism, completely beyond the primitive technology available at the time from which the object was dated, that you would conclude that the work was "not" designed, even though the "designer" could not reasonably have been any known terrestrial life form?
Scientifically, you would have sufficient evidence from the above to reasonably conclude that the object was designed by a non-human, but insufficient evidence to conclude that the object was designed by God.
Thus, you would have no knowledge of the designer, yet you would have evidence of design -- and so, your premise of source precognition is false, because it is not required for my example to succeed.
Quote from Teleologist:
Sure, but what if the hypothesis merely assumes something MAY be designed? Certainly if something looks designed that is evidence that it MAY be designed. Or put another way, if something looks designed that is a good reason to suspect it MAY be designed and to follow up the suspicion with an investigation. If you take away the âlooks likeâ approach, you have taken away the crucial key to any investigation.
...
Okay, so the first human vistors to Mars find a message written in the sand. Are you going to infer an intelligent entity caused it or are you going to attempt to thwart the design inference by invoking infinite regress?
Re your first paragraph, if something "looks" designed, you are presuming this because you have some advance evidence to support your speculation -- even if said evidence is nothing more than routine prior familiarity with things clearly the same as the thing you are hypothesizing as designed. So, your proposed hypothesis depends on this advance evidence, whatever it may be.
Re your second paragraph, you state that we find a "message" in the sand. How do you know it's a message vis-a-vis some other information, just by looking at it?
Tree rings provide information about the age of the tree, but they're not a message from the tree intended to convey any particular tree's age. You can't get to "the tree is designed" without more evidence than merely inference, except where you are drawing an inference about something that you already know from past experience "is" designed.