Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Count Lucanor]

No, the Big Bang tells us our current state of the universe had a relative beginning, but not necessarily that all that exists or ever existed had an absolute beginning. In any case (relative or absolute), to have a beginning doesn't imply, by necessity, any act of creation by an intelligent being, and you have been telling us that there's no causal connection between God and the universe, since (as you argue) causality came along with (and not prior to) the universe. Everything, even with your arguments, points to no relation between the universe and God. Your hypothetical god is no less hypothetical than the Flying Teapot.

Here you will find in my article that you are of a distinct minority along with Bertrand Russell.

Read it and weep.

https://catholicinsight.com/science-and-religio

So, after losing the argument you resort to "many people side with me in believing there's a god". A good old fallacy.

I don't discuss faith, do you have anything else?

If you're too lazy to read my article, I have nothing else.

The real fallacy is that you ignore the evidence supplied by so many great men of science.

So many great men could be wrong, but you will never know that by ignoring their testimony.

I'm pretty sure you were feeling pretty lazy when writing it. And it might come as a surprise to you, but yes, many great men have been wrong. BTW, none of those that you mention in your article has ever advanced any substantial evidence of a deity, not even attempted to do so. They just speculated and held opinions as anyone else. But what are we asking for? You had the chance to present an argument to support the claim that an intelligent designer is needed and you blew it.

[d3r31nz1g3]

There is no evidence for "intelligent design".

Why would there exist a designer pre-existing existence that which specifically designed human reality? It's nonsense.

However, ignoring this technicality and instead focusing on what is actually meant by "intelligent design"--that reality around us is an intelligent and purposeful blueprint...

I'll conjure up an image I've used to make a few different points:



Ignoring all evolutionary reality, there is a massive amount of evidence that humans are 100% a pre-encoded blueprint. Five fingers, five toes, symmetrical...

Now I wouldn't say this evidences "intelligent design", but I would say that perhaps "humans are innate and pre-encoded in time and mathematics itself".

Which is a quizzical concept in the face of evolution. Yet, somehow, I think it remains absolutely true. Humanity as we know it is a pre-destined entity.

No, not at all. There's much more evidence for intelligent design v. non-intelligent design. Think of the information narrative and the causal powers of same. You know, existential human condition quality of life stuff! Or if you prefer, that which breaths fire into the Hawking equations!

Among many other quality of life, quantum phenomena thingies which only human's experience, unless one can prove say, where Singularity came from and the first species ex nihilo (conscious existence), much like the exclusivity of materialism you're more or less dead in the water! No pun intended!!

I hate the term "intelligent design". It's totally nonsensical. There is no designer, there is no design.

There is a BLUEPRINT, however. Which is actually, in layman language, very similar to "design".

But "design" implies "designer" and "blueprint" implies an "innate structure that was encoded and blueprinted".

In the face of all evolutionary reality, I maintain that human beings are 100% pre-encoded in time and mathematics as a robotical structure. Five fingers, five toes, eyes ears mouth and nose. We are even horizontally symmetrical.

That "human beings" are an innate entity. Pre-encoded like a triangle or the color spectrum in our entirety.

The thing is, despite this concept being apparently true, it stands in harsh contradiction to all evidentiary reality. That means evolutionary history itself, which is proven by physical sciences.

I maintain that "humans are entirely pre-encoded like a triangle, as a robotical entity" despite all evolutionary reality.

[Sy Borg]

d3, what you say about humans could apply to countless species.

[3017Metaphysician]

There is no evidence for "intelligent design".

Why would there exist a designer pre-existing existence that which specifically designed human reality? It's nonsense.

However, ignoring this technicality and instead focusing on what is actually meant by "intelligent design"--that reality around us is an intelligent and purposeful blueprint...

I'll conjure up an image I've used to make a few different points:



Ignoring all evolutionary reality, there is a massive amount of evidence that humans are 100% a pre-encoded blueprint. Five fingers, five toes, symmetrical...

Now I wouldn't say this evidences "intelligent design", but I would say that perhaps "humans are innate and pre-encoded in time and mathematics itself".

Which is a quizzical concept in the face of evolution. Yet, somehow, I think it remains absolutely true. Humanity as we know it is a pre-destined entity.

No, not at all. There's much more evidence for intelligent design v. non-intelligent design. Think of the information narrative and the causal powers of same. You know, existential human condition quality of life stuff! Or if you prefer, that which breaths fire into the Hawking equations!

Among many other quality of life, quantum phenomena thingies which only human's experience, unless one can prove say, where Singularity came from and the first species ex nihilo (conscious existence), much like the exclusivity of materialism you're more or less dead in the water! No pun intended!!

I hate the term "intelligent design". It's totally nonsensical. There is no designer, there is no design.

There is a BLUEPRINT, however. Which is actually, in layman language, very similar to "design".

But "design" implies "designer" and "blueprint" implies an "innate structure that was encoded and blueprinted".

In the face of all evolutionary reality, I maintain that human beings are 100% pre-encoded in time and mathematics as a robotical structure. Five fingers, five toes, eyes ears mouth and nose. We are even horizontally symmetrical.

That "human beings" are an innate entity. Pre-encoded like a triangle or the color spectrum in our entirety.

The thing is, despite this concept being apparently true, it stands in harsh contradiction to all evidentiary reality. That means evolutionary history itself, which is proven by physical sciences.

I maintain that "humans are entirely pre-encoded like a triangle, as a robotical entity" despite all evolutionary reality.

Sure! And that 'pre-coding' is all part of a metaphysical language, or design, relative to the information narrative. Think of intelligent design this way.

An engineer typically gets paid to design a structure and its components. He uses his conscious mind, an information processing system, and its qualitative properties to transform an idea or revelation into some-thing. That something is usually a material thingie. But it starts with his idea, which is not exclusively a material property. Then, with this revelatory idea in his mind, he uses mathematical calculation to design and ultimately mass produce its structure. So behind a physical structure, is an abstract phenomenon that is driving its existence or in this instance, the creation of it by an intelligent being with a conscious mind. Its existence is caused by an idea. You might wonder then; what is an object of thought?

But that's just a pragmatic association with how metaphysical languages (mathematical ideas) or narratives become all part of existing things. You have material objects that are transformed into other objects of utility through an intelligent human being. An information process that involves qualitative entities. In simple terms, it's about people who feel the need to build stuff to enhance their quality of life. A something beyond mere Darwinian evolution. Remember, performing mathematical calculations confer no biological survival advantages. Same with music theory (and other qualitative entities). Hence, yet another analogy to both the matter and information narratives.

Or let's say In cosmology, we have a thingie, a fundamental particle(s), that moves around without any apparent physical communication link between each other (quantum entanglement/non-locality). These fundamental particles behave in such a way that seems to follow or is guided by some set of instructions for its behavior. And much like the laws of the universe, or the foregoing mathematical instructions for the design of a material structure, that information is not an exclusive physical property. Much like your genetic coding is logically necessary for most life forms, we have a specification, instruction, or set of laws governing its existence.

Those are just some basic examples of the information and matter narratives that have causal properties. Existentially, or in cognitive science and human phenomenology, there are a whole host of qualitative abstract entities which have causal powers. Or if you like, the primacy of the human Will to exist.

[EricPH]

The creation of the universe and life is history, and you can't change history. Either God created the universe and life, or there is no god, you could be a hundred percent right or wrong on the toss of a coin.

No, it is not fifty-fifty. If not Yahweh, maybe it's Ba'al or Zarathusatra or Zeus? Reality is clearly eternal (or close enough to) and God is an obvious myth.

Hi Sy, I could call you Bob or Bill or Jane or Mary, whatever I call you; does not change who you are.

If there is a God, the creator of all that is seen and unseen, the same applies. You could call him Ba'al or Zarathusatra or Zeus, it will not change who God is. The creation of the universe and life is history, and you can't change history.

That's why you still refuse to make your claims to evolutionary biologists - as has been suggested to you many times

Again, the thread asks for evidence for intelligent design, so it is not unreasonable to include God.

[3017Metaphysician]

The creation of the universe and life is history, and you can't change history. Either God created the universe and life, or there is no god, you could be a hundred percent right or wrong on the toss of a coin.

No, it is not fifty-fifty. If not Yahweh, maybe it's Ba'al or Zarathusatra or Zeus? Reality is clearly eternal (or close enough to) and God is an obvious myth.

Hi Sy, I could call you Bob or Bill or Jane or Mary, whatever I call you; does not change who you are.

If there is a God, the creator of all that is seen and unseen, the same applies. You could call him Ba'al or Zarathusatra or Zeus, it will not change who God is. The creation of the universe and life is history, and you can't change history.

That's why you still refuse to make your claims to evolutionary biologists - as has been suggested to you many times

Again, the thread asks for evidence for intelligent design, so it is not unreasonable to include God.

Yeah. She struggles with the secular or generic or even philosophical concept of a God and why it's logically necessary (or logically possible) to posit same. Hence your statement "the thread asks for evidence for intelligent design, so it is not unreasonable to include [posit] God."

After all, one posits God in over 75% of all philosophical domains. We didn't invent the concept. She's assigning properties to someone or a some-thing that is not relevant or germane to any design argument. For example, a primer mover that has causal properties or effects corresponding to both information and matter narratives. Or, that which breaths fire into the Hawking equations. Saying Zeus, Picasso, Madonna, or anyone else is a non sequitur. A logical fallacy indeed!

[Sy Borg]

No, it is not fifty-fifty. If not Yahweh, maybe it's Ba'al or Zarathusatra or Zeus? Reality is clearly eternal (or close enough to) and God is an obvious myth.

Hi Sy, I could call you Bob or Bill or Jane or Mary, whatever I call you; does not change who you are.

If there is a God, the creator of all that is seen and unseen, the same applies. You could call him Ba'al or Zarathusatra or Zeus, it will not change who God is. The creation of the universe and life is history, and you can't change history.

Call me Sy. So you believe in Zeus?

That's why you still refuse to make your claims to evolutionary biologists - as has been suggested to you many times

Again, the thread asks for evidence for intelligent design, so it is not unreasonable to include God.

It's unreasonable if there is no evidence. That is why you fear presenting a case to evolutionary biologists, even though they are the ones with whom you differ. Fact is, you know that an expert in biology would destroy your arguments in ways that philosophy buffs cannot.

BTW, many sophisticated Christians have no problem accepting evolution. Only the very most superstitious Christians continue to argue for fundamentalist literalist interpretations.

I am ignoring Metaphysician, who can only make personal attacks. Hopeless.

[3017Metaphysician]

No, it is not fifty-fifty. If not Yahweh, maybe it's Ba'al or Zarathusatra or Zeus? Reality is clearly eternal (or close enough to) and God is an obvious myth.

Hi Sy, I could call you Bob or Bill or Jane or Mary, whatever I call you; does not change who you are.

If there is a God, the creator of all that is seen and unseen, the same applies. You could call him Ba'al or Zarathusatra or Zeus, it will not change who God is. The creation of the universe and life is history, and you can't change history.

Call me Sy. So you believe in Zeus?

That's why you still refuse to make your claims to evolutionary biologists - as has been suggested to you many times

Again, the thread asks for evidence for intelligent design, so it is not unreasonable to include God.

It's unreasonable if there is no evidence. That is why you fear presenting a case to evolutionary biologists, even though they are the ones with whom you differ. Fact is, you know that an expert in biology would destroy your arguments in ways that philosophy buffs cannot.

BTW, many sophisticated Christians have no problem accepting evolution. Only the very most superstitious Christians continue to argue for fundamentalist literalist interpretations.

I am ignoring Metaphysician, who can only make personal attacks. Hopeless.

Excuse me? Not personal attacks, just the facts ma'am. Can't help it if you take correction personally.

Remember, we're on a philosophy site, not a social media blog.

[Sy Borg]

Such hypocrisy, a blatant case of DARVO. No one on the forum has more of a cheap social media approach than Metaphysician. Is he unable to make a post without a personal attack? Maybe, but we are still waiting.

It is, of course, entirely unreasonable to posit the deity of Iron Age Middle East as a credible alternative to evolution. If that is okay,m then one might as well posit any deity, or deities, of antiquity. Why give primacy to the Christian God, anyway, other than it being the main deity of our culture? God is just one more ancient deity, no better or worse than any other.

[Count Lucanor]

Such hypocrisy, a blatant case of DARVO. No one on the forum has more of a cheap social media approach than Metaphysician. Is he unable to make a post without a personal attack? Maybe, but we are still waiting.

It is, of course, entirely unreasonable to posit the deity of Iron Age Middle East as a credible alternative to evolution. If that is okay,m then one might as well posit any deity, or deities, of antiquity. Why give primacy to the Christian God, anyway, other than it being the main deity of our culture? God is just one more ancient deity, no better or worse than any other.

Is he still on his bullying campaign? Wouldn't have guessed.

Anyway, surely Shiva was a cooler god, much much better than the mediocre Yahweh, that spoiled child that can't stand people eating pork.

[Sy Borg]

Such hypocrisy, a blatant case of DARVO. No one on the forum has more of a cheap social media approach than Metaphysician. Is he unable to make a post without a personal attack? Maybe, but we are still waiting.

It is, of course, entirely unreasonable to posit the deity of Iron Age Middle East as a credible alternative to evolution. If that is okay,m then one might as well posit any deity, or deities, of antiquity. Why give primacy to the Christian God, anyway, other than it being the main deity of our culture? God is just one more ancient deity, no better or worse than any other.

Is he still on his bullying campaign? Wouldn't have guessed.

Anyway, surely Shiva was a cooler god, much much better than the mediocre Yahweh, that spoiled child that can't stand people eating pork.

I don't approve of factory farmed pigs myself, so I can't complain about Yahweh there.

In the end, it doesn't make sense to keep doing science to a point where we switch to religion. Yes, there are some mysteries and challenges, but science is a process of solving mysteries. The sad part of all this to me is that evolution is such an amazing process, and it's a shame for it to be misunderstood and sullied by religious literalism. As noted, plenty of theists have no problem with evolution, seeing it God's means of creation. I still think the deity is superfluous, but at least that conception does not interfere with learning.

[3017Metaphysician]

Such hypocrisy, a blatant case of DARVO. No one on the forum has more of a cheap social media approach than Metaphysician. Is he unable to make a post without a personal attack? Maybe, but we are still waiting.

It is, of course, entirely unreasonable to posit the deity of Iron Age Middle East as a credible alternative to evolution. If that is okay,m then one might as well posit any deity, or deities, of antiquity. Why give primacy to the Christian God, anyway, other than it being the main deity of our culture? God is just one more ancient deity, no better or worse than any other.

Sure. Many people give primacy to metaphysical phenomena that exist. For example, your own Will that causes you to exist or not exist. Otherwise, say, in Christianity Jesus existed in a history book. You know, just like your Zeus! Is there a difference?

[Sy Borg]

It is, of course, entirely unreasonable to posit the deity of Iron Age Middle East as a credible alternative to evolution. If that is okay,m then one might as well posit any deity, or deities, of antiquity. Why give primacy to the Christian God, anyway, other than it being the main deity of our culture? God is just one more ancient deity, no better or worse than any other.

Sure. Many people give primacy to metaphysical phenomena that exist. For example, your own Will that causes you to exist or not exist. Otherwise, say, in Christianity Jesus existed in a history book. You know, just like your Zeus! Is there a difference?

Jesus may or may not have actually existed. He was a superhero archetype, as was common lead character in legends of the time, from Egypt to Greece to Israel to Rome.

Still, even if Jesus did exist, that hardly disproves evolution, which has been the aim of this thread. Maybe we'll have a thread denying NASA's Moon landing too?

[3017Metaphysician]

It is, of course, entirely unreasonable to posit the deity of Iron Age Middle East as a credible alternative to evolution. If that is okay,m then one might as well posit any deity, or deities, of antiquity. Why give primacy to the Christian God, anyway, other than it being the main deity of our culture? God is just one more ancient deity, no better or worse than any other.

Sure. Many people give primacy to metaphysical phenomena that exist. For example, your own Will that causes you to exist or not exist. Otherwise, say, in Christianity Jesus existed in a history book. You know, just like your Zeus! Is there a difference?

Jesus may or may not have actually existed. He was a superhero archetype, as was common lead character in legends of the time, from Egypt to Greece to Israel to Rome.

Still, even if Jesus did exist, that hardly disproves evolution, which has been the aim of this thread. Maybe we'll have a thread denying NASA's Moon landing too?

Evolution is just a theory. And a pretty weak one at that. At best it teaches us about emergence. But then that only leads to paradox (information v. matter narratives). And since Darwin only hypothesized from an already existing ensemble of creatures, it leaves a lot to be desired. Particularly relative to the information narrative (conscious existence, time, the Will, and other metaphysical phenomena ex nihilo) As such, the phenomena of quantum entanglement, spooky action at a distance, along with the mystery associated with where Singularity came from, makes your evolution almost a non sequitur. And that doesn't even cover all of the why's of existence. You know, that same thing the Hawkings wondered about... .

Keep trying SB!

[Sy Borg]

It is, of course, entirely unreasonable to posit the deity of Iron Age Middle East as a credible alternative to evolution. If that is okay,m then one might as well posit any deity, or deities, of antiquity. Why give primacy to the Christian God, anyway, other than it being the main deity of our culture? God is just one more ancient deity, no better or worse than any other.

Sure. Many people give primacy to metaphysical phenomena that exist. For example, your own Will that causes you to exist or not exist. Otherwise, say, in Christianity Jesus existed in a history book. You know, just like your Zeus! Is there a difference?

Jesus may or may not have actually existed. He was a superhero archetype, as was common lead character in legends of the time, from Egypt to Greece to Israel to Rome.

Still, even if Jesus did exist, that hardly disproves evolution, which has been the aim of this thread. Maybe we'll have a thread denying NASA's Moon landing too?

Evolution is just a theory.

"Just a theory" makes clear that you lack the basic core knowledge to meaningfully contribute to any discussion about science and nature.