Closed Prove me wrong

[bandwagon]

I've already addressed this many times before. It astounds me how you conveniently ignored what I already discussed. ID is pseudoscience because it assumes the existence of an incomprehensible force having an unfalsifiable hand in the creation, evolution and survival of living organisms. When you're dealing with incomprehensible and unfalsifiable terms you're dealing with baseless assumptions—the very antithesis of science.

There is no design in the universe. You've got not a slightest clue of what you're talking about. Around 3 billion years from now, earth will be completely uninhabitable when it travels out of the goldilocks zone which will result in conditions that are impossible for life to still thrive. The universe goes through this constant series of formation and destruction of planetary and star systems and galaxies, and evolution and extinction of their living inhabitants, if any. Even the universe will end one day, and the actual amount of time the universe can be able to harbor life is not even greater than 1% of the universe's total lifespan. The universe will be an empty, cold, lifeless place for most of its time. The fate of the universe is too scary and depressing to be designed by an intelligent force. Your improvident creationist views totally lack scientific insight and foresight.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

Ignore what? Yes, you discussed this again and again according to your own erroneous and superficial terms. Therefore, again and again I will expose your biased assertion. You have the slightest idea of the Intelligent Design Theory. I am not an ID scientist nor an apologetic of that theory. However, you have the slightest idea about its fundamental theoretical claims. You are fond of invoking the pseudo-scholars of Wikipedia particularly treating the IDT.

How do you know that there is no design in the universe? Are you intellectually blind or just dismissive of a competent theory? You dismiss it according not how that theory approach reality scientifically but you mistook at as if it's Creationism as understood by religious fundamentalist point of view. Example, how do you even explain in Darwinist point of view the genetic or molecular structures of even the simplest life form where it takes an immense ordering just for a protein to evolve? What are you going to say about this?Are you to summon Wikipedia and ready to answer like "well IDT is disguised creationist" "the IDT scientists were theists or Christians"? Is this how you are going to scientofically refute a competing theory?This is a vicious circle.

What if the universe will have a heat death? The problem is that you assume that the atheist has the only logical/philosophical, scientific and rational underatanding of reality. What were audience into articulating your poins here? Were the religious fundamentalists or the people of the stone age who were zapped into this era? Going back to the physical state of the universe where it eventually faces heat death, so what? That is scientific yes! However, that hypothesis isnt atheistic. It is only the mind that will assert a physical phenomenon or a logical concepts for a conclusion to reinforce his presupposition as an atheist or theist. We can not find in nature about atheism or theism. It is only the intelligent mind with his philosophical or scientific disposal that will organize the data from the wide range of human experience to reinforce his willed presuppositions of things.

 

[bandwagon]

You are completely oblivious to the critical developments in philosophy post-Enlightenment if you seriously believe theism still holds ground in philosophy today and is equal in viability to atheism.

Academic philosophy has already engaged extensively and critically with the issue of God's existence for the past 300 years, and the pendulum has swung fairly firmly in a direction that suggests no gods exist. Even in the slightest possibility that such a higher being exists somewhere in an unknown, theoretical plane of existence that is detached from the universe, it doesn't matter because that being doesn't manifest at all in our physical reality and isn't remotely making any effect on us—essentially making that being indistinguishable from non-existent and unreal.

Nothing in the universe from its origin, evolution and development, to its laws, mechanism and processes, even in issues concerning human affairs, requires an appeal to any supernatural cause. Gods and religions are completely outdated, and don't offer viable answers to any problem philosophers/scientists are still trying to work on—surely not in biology, physics and cosmology nor even in ethics, economics and politics. Science and philosophy which have both become naturalized and atheistic do so much better job, and the only ones that do it right, in explaining the universe and humanity. Appeals to gods are extraneous and unnecessary. The universe doesn't need gods to exist nor invoking gods in times of distress will help or change a thing. God is dead in philosophy and it won't ever be making a comeback.

Please enlighten me about this so called Post-Enlightenment and how this philosophical movement we are suppose to believe absolutely without critical analysis.

The last time I checked the internet, voila God is coming back from the grave after Nietzsche and the 1960's. I don't argue that there IS is God. I mean, theistic philosophers are too many and that many arguments were everywhere and yet you are making the most disparaging and ignorant assessment of these theistic philosophies.

I completely disagree that science and philosophy are 'naturalized' and atheistic. What an irony. I dont need to explain this further.

 

[fabbriche]

Ignore what? Yes, you discussed this again and again according to your own erroneous and superficial terms. Therefore, again and again I will expose your biased assertion. You have the slightest idea of the Intelligent Design Theory. I am not an ID scientist nor an apologetic of that theory. However, you have the slightest idea about its fundamental theoretical claims. You are fond of invoking the pseudo-scholars of Wikipedia particularly treating the IDT.

How do you know that there is no design in the universe? Are you intellectually blind or just dismissive of a competent theory? You dismiss it according not how that theory approach reality scientifically but you mistook at as if it's Creationism as understood by religious fundamentalist point of view. Example, how do you even explain in Darwinist point of view the genetic or molecular structures of even the simplest life form where it takes an immense ordering just for a protein to evolve? What are you going to say about this?Are you to summon Wikipedia and ready to answer like "well IDT is disguised creationist" "the IDT scientists were theists or Christians"? Is this how you are going to scientofically refute a competing theory?This is a vicious circle.

What if the universe will have a heat death? The problem is that you assume that the atheist has the only logical/philosophical, scientific and rational underatanding of reality. What were audience into articulating your poins here? Were the religious fundamentalists or the people of the stone age who were zapped into this era? Going back to the physical state of the universe where it eventually faces heat death, so what? That is scientific yes! However, that hypothesis isnt atheistic. It is only the mind that will assert a physical phenomenon or a logical concepts for a conclusion to reinforce his presupposition as an atheist or theist. We can not find in nature about atheism or theism. It is only the intelligent mind with his philosophical or scientific disposal that will organize the data from the wide range of human experience to reinforce his willed presuppositions of things.

There are no "ID scientists" as Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and no amount of blathering will elevate it into a scientific theory. Intelligent Design is a religious ideology that attempts to show creationism as true by using some semblance of an intellectual argument, rather than just ‘because the Bible says so’, but is rejected and its teaching vehemently opposed by the scientific community.

Science doesn't support god, creationism, intelligent design or any other religious notion as there is no evidence for or logic in any of them. Finding patterns in nature is not evidence of design or god. ID is a conclusion desperately seeking for evidence and mechanism. It starts by asserting god or design (the conclusion) then only proceeds in search for its evidence while non-supporting evidence or contradicting evidence against it is discarded or explained away. That's not how science works. In a legitimate scientific theory, your conclusion should come last after you've collected your evidence. Also, scientific theories are made stronger or weaker by constant tests and experimentation. There's no way to test the validity of ID as it is not falsifiable at all.

Anyway, in the event that Darwinism fails to account for something or even in the remote possibility that it gets discarded in the future by some contradicting evidence, it doesn't automatically show Intelligent Design to be true. The falsity of one theory in science doesn't validate another (competing) theory. The merit of a scientific theory must come from itself, i.e. if its supported by verifiable evidence and makes testable prediction. Intelligent Design has none of those. ID is nothing but another form of argument from ignorance. "I don't know or don't fully understand something, and the universe seems nicely ordered and follows some complex pattern, therefore god exists and the universe is designed by god..." Yes, another god of the gaps fallacy.

Here is a succinct article about Intelligent Design from the highly reputed National Academy of Sciences if you don't trust Wikipedia. All reputable sources say the same thing: ID is a religious hogwash.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

 

[fabbriche]

Please enlighten me about this so called Post-Enlightenment and how this philosophical movement we are suppose to believe absolutely without critical analysis.

The last time I checked the internet, voila God is coming back from the grave after Nietzsche and the 1960's. I don't argue that there IS is God. I mean, theistic philosophers are too many and that many arguments were everywhere and yet you are making the most disparaging and ignorant assessment of these theistic philosophies.

I completely disagree that science and philosophy are 'naturalized' and atheistic. What an irony. I dont need to explain this further.

So you really admit to your naivety about the topics you're arguing for and against here?

In case you didn't know, David Hume and Immanuel Kant both irrevocably changed and shaped the course of contemporary philosophy wherein most of ancient and medieval philosophies such as Aristotelianism, Thomism, scholasticism, etc. on which theism heavily depends have been rendered obsolete. Philosophy today is the most atheistic profession which does not bode well and tells so much about the viability of theism as a philosophy. This current widespread atheism of philosophers is the result of the Kantian takedown of natural theology which was the justification given for belief in god pretty much all through philosophy up until that point, so its ultimate defeat by Kant is a HUGE deal, and the Humean attack on religion and supernaturalism (you could benefit from reading his "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" to understand why most professionals in those fields don’t regard god as a viable answer to any question about reality). This, and the philosophy that followed, is what dethroned God in intellectual culture.

Philosophy of Religion is the only theist-majority area of philosophy which itself is a very problematic area as it has been stagnant and, unlike other philosophical subdisciplines, didn't produce any new developments throughout history but instead still resorts to reformulating age-old theistic arguments. PoR is the most left behind area of philosophy. Philosophy today has changed and evolved drastically since the European Enlightenment to catch up with modern science but those few modern theist philosophers you look up to still use the outmoded classical and medieval arguments of Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus, Anselm, Aquinas and Avicenna that no academic philosopher of today still cites.

 

[bandwagon]

There are no "ID scientists" as Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and no amount of blathering will elevate it into a scientific theory. Intelligent Design is a religious ideology that attempts to show creationism as true by using some semblance of an intellectual argument, rather than just ‘because the Bible says so’, but is rejected and its teaching vehemently opposed by the scientific community.

Science doesn't support god, creationism, intelligent design or any other religious notion as there is no evidence for or logic in any of them. Finding patterns in nature is not evidence of design or god. ID is a conclusion desperately seeking for evidence and mechanism. It starts by asserting god or design (the conclusion) then only proceeds in search for its evidence while non-supporting evidence or contradicting evidence against it is discarded or explained away. That's not how science works. In a legitimate scientific theory, your conclusion should come last after you've collected your evidence. Also, scientific theories are made stronger or weaker by constant tests and experimentation. There's no way to test the validity of ID as it is not falsifiable at all.

Anyway, in the event that Darwinism fails to account for something or even in the remote possibility that it gets discarded in the future by some contradicting evidence, it doesn't automatically show Intelligent Design to be true. The falsity of one theory in science doesn't validate another (competing) theory. The merit of a scientific theory must come from itself, i.e. if its supported by verifiable evidence and makes testable prediction. Intelligent Design has none of those. ID is nothing but another form of argument from ignorance. "I don't know or don't fully understand something, and the universe seems nicely ordered and follows some complex pattern, therefore god exists and the universe is designed by god..." Yes, another god of the gaps fallacy.

Here is a succinct article about Intelligent Design from the highly reputed National Academy of Sciences if you don't trust Wikipedia. All reputable sources say the same thing: ID is a religious hogwash.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

This is redundant or I will redirect you to links that will somehow refute or challenge the source of informations you provide. Repetitious nonsense. IDT theory is not Creationism as you superficially understood. IDT does not assume that first, there must be a God or Creator and then from that will start its scientific investigation. The fact is that the theory investigates the universe of its physical, biological and chemical components if these manifestations are of random or blnd origins or that an intelligence is behind all these things. It is only a dogmatic disposition to say that all have been answerwd by Darwinism in the origin of life. What??IDT answers otherwiae and you should contend with this. As much as possible, lay down here your arguments and not what the pseudo-scholars of anti-IDT. You have to paraphrase fundamental arguments or claims of the ID theorists correctly and then blow them with your own scientific criticisms. You are preaching actually. You are preaching a dogma. Supposed to be, a truly scientific mind is critical and questions everything. This doesn't mean that established theories should be questioned tome to time that there is no time left for its practical application in the real life.
Now, how about Darwinism? Is it a theory that is imperviouss, immutable or beyond criticisms or queations? It doesn't mean, Darwinisn hasn't practical use in the sciences or real life. However, to un-question it is intaelf a kind of dogma where the freedon of inquiry and investigations is stalled and intellectual growth will come to a standstill. Hence, it brings demise, dogma, and the irony is that it is anti-science to question Darwinism. IDT is a scientific approach that challenge the traditional claims of Darwinsm. This discussion will drag on as long as we are alive and have the will to argue. Or, we just put weblinks after weblinks here or just we need to mute and let these experts on their fields to have the say.

 

[bandwagon]

So you really admit to your naivety about the topics you're arguing for and against here?

In case you didn't know, David Hume and Immanuel Kant both irrevocably changed and shaped the course of contemporary philosophy wherein most of ancient and medieval philosophies such as Aristotelianism, Thomism, scholasticism, etc. on which theism heavily depends have been rendered obsolete. Philosophy today is the most atheistic profession which does not bode well and tells so much about the viability of theism as a philosophy. This current widespread atheism of philosophers is the result of the Kantian takedown of natural theology which was the justification given for belief in god pretty much all through philosophy up until that point, so its ultimate defeat by Kant is a HUGE deal, and the Humean attack on religion and supernaturalism (you could benefit from reading his "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" to understand why most professionals in those fields don’t regard god as a viable answer to any question about reality). This, and the philosophy that followed, is what dethroned God in intellectual culture.

Philosophy of Religion is the only theist-majority area of philosophy which itself is a very problematic area as it has been stagnant and, unlike other philosophical subdisciplines, didn't produce any new developments throughout history but instead still resorts to reformulating age-old theistic arguments. PoR is the most left behind area of philosophy. Philosophy today has changed and evolved drastically since the European Enlightenment to catch up with modern science but those few modern theist philosophers you look up to still use the outmoded classical and medieval arguments of Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus, Anselm, Aquinas and Avicenna that no academic philosopher of today still cites.

Yes I am too naive that I don't know how the Post-Enlightenment killed God/s or theistic philosophy. Therefore, please enlighten me and lay down here the reasons why thay we may scrutinize it. You should not just say, because so and so that the Post-enlightenment period says so and so and therefore. That is not what I want to know. Just simply put down here a specified argument, for example a PE(post enlightenment) philosopher thay supports your claims here. Example, Kant or Hume. Can you lay down them here now? Or are talking to the wind or wishing well that these generation we have now is to believe or buy the PE philosophies? Of course, PE is part of traditional philosophy in general.As Hegel puts that philosophy is its own time raised to the level of thought or that the owl of Mineva spreads its wings only when the falling of dusk. The point here is that there is no philosopher that is expert in everything that can be philosophize or the branches/ categories in philosophy.

 

[sebaste1016]

Ganito opinion ko, mahirap sabihin kung may God o Wala. Hindi din ako naniniwala kay Jesus Christ kasi magiging one-sided ka kung si Jesus pinaniniwalaan mo. Si Jesus ay naka based sa sinabi nang Bible.. Eh papano ung ibang religion like Buddhism, Muslims, hindus etc na ibang books din ung bases nila.. Koran, etc. Kung maniniwala ka na Si Jesus Christ ung God/Son of God, ano gagawin mo dun sa mga taong ibang Gods ung pinaniniwalaan nla kagaya ni buddah/allah/etc? mga namulat din a un ang knalakihan nila?? oo siguro may creator tayo, ang tanong kung sino. Definitely not Jesus Christ/Alah/Buddah.

 

[PHC Proxydomain]

God is real, prove me wrong ts.

 

[doppleghost]

What God this thread is talking about? Basically human got so many Gods. Science got so many branches too. I'm not an atheist, I'm not into science too. I'm just a stranger passing by.
I'm leaving this thread with the question:

Who believe in God and created science?

 

[Tiga]

What God this thread is talking about? Basically human got so many Gods. Science got so many branches too. I'm not an atheist, I'm not into science too. I'm just a stranger passing by.
I'm leaving this thread with the question:

Who believe in God and created science?

God created our existence.

Human twists our beliefs thru science.

 

[homer_simpson]

God created our existence.

Human twists our beliefs thru science.

And yet you are benefiting from the "twists" created by science.