Yet another “Intelligent design” argument
Posted: 07 September 2017 07:16 AM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  18
Joined  2017-09-01

Slovakia census shows 60% of christians, yet from my own experience there far more people who are open to the idea of “Personal god”. Those people like to cite Bible, but dont have a problem to ditch Old Testament, and stick only with New Testament claiming that “this is the current one”.

One guy used this approach in quite interesting way.

1. He ditched Genesis story completely.
He argued that science had completely proven that the story is either not true, or its just metaphor.

2. He cited some “intelligent design” arguments.
His (supposedly rational) claim is that every structure needs a designer.

3, He cited Letters, Paul of Tarsus something like (translating from slovak)
“his invisible reality, his power and godhood could be learned since the creation, by thinking about created things”. And he concludes that things need design - an idea of “thing” which had to originate in the mind of the creator.

Well… Its a self defeating argument, i know that. “I deny Creation, but I will cite the guy who speaks about it.”, but anyway he made me think about that. I would not even bother with question where did the designer come from (as sometimes its perceived as form of victory). Therefore I started to think about different counterargument.


If you are a designer, you will draw the plans of a building with everything it its included in it. The plan shows the building in one particular moment, and thats the moment when its completed.

The thing is that earlier ideas about Earth and Universe in general were relatively static. Universe was not expanding, continents were not drifting, organisms were not evolving. Scientific method changed this perception.

If there is a claim that everything is “part of a plan” you as a designer would spend an eternity… Now lets invent atom of copper, which will be part of the electric lines in the building… now lets design that this window will crack after some time… and keep designing every stage of decay of later abandoned building, but up to the stage that every atom and sub-atomic particle of the building will evaporate at time when universe will end.

Therefore its more and more apparent that change itself is a good argument against inteligent desing, yet I look for a way how to explain that.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 September 2017 10:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1541
Joined  2012-04-25

The problem with any I.D. argument is twofold. First who designed the designer? That’s sort of a showstopper except that they can say No one. He’s undesigned. But better than that, and something I like to ask is, ok I’ll grant you there’s an intelligent designer that wasn’t itself designed. That’s gets you absolutely nowhere. Without reference to the bible, since that would be circular reasoning, prove that this designer is your Christian god and not any other, and not just some being that appears to us as godlike but in fact is just super advanced.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 September 2017 11:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  18
Joined  2017-09-01

Well, the whole claim “there might be technologically advanced being, which might act with technology which would appear to us like a miracle” can be interpreted in a manner like “so you admit that being can be god”. James Cook was mistaken for a god, Christopher Hitchens was mistaken for a god, both for reasons being europeans in a far away land, and one for having a wooden ship. It did not made them gods in literal sense…

If I make such assumption I will indireclty admit that i think likewise as he does, and thats simply not true. Its not something I would even suggest. It may appear as a good starting point, but people who cite Bible and at the same time claim to have “personal god” do not really believe in the “Christian god”. This guy direclty admitted he picks the passages he likes, and ignores the ones he dislikes.

Goal is somehow to get him out of the confusion he made - that can be made quite easily by pointing out that he cited Paul of Tarsus who spoken about Genesis. But that would leave him to search the New Testament for another fitting reference and I would prevent even that. Its clear that people who wrote New Testament would refer to Old one all the time. Dispute about “undesigned designer” would not serve the purpose, the goal is get him out of circulal argument.

[ Edited: 07 September 2017 11:52 AM by Offler ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 September 2017 02:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1541
Joined  2012-04-25
Offler - 07 September 2017 11:34 AM

Well, the whole claim “there might be technologically advanced being, which might act with technology which would appear to us like a miracle” can be interpreted in a manner like “so you admit that being can be god”. James Cook was mistaken for a god, Christopher Hitchens was mistaken for a god, both for reasons being europeans in a far away land, and one for having a wooden ship. It did not made them gods in literal sense…

If I make such assumption I will indireclty admit that i think likewise as he does, and thats simply not true. Its not something I would even suggest. It may appear as a good starting point, but people who cite Bible and at the same time claim to have “personal god” do not really believe in the “Christian god”. This guy direclty admitted he picks the passages he likes, and ignores the ones he dislikes.

Goal is somehow to get him out of the confusion he made - that can be made quite easily by pointing out that he cited Paul of Tarsus who spoken about Genesis. But that would leave him to search the New Testament for another fitting reference and I would prevent even that. Its clear that people who wrote New Testament would refer to Old one all the time. Dispute about “undesigned designer” would not serve the purpose, the goal is get him out of circulal argument.

You draw the wrong conclusion. It’s not that that being would be god. The correct conclusion is that that being would APPEAR TO US to be like a god, but in fact would not be “the god” that your friend is speaking of. And there’s no way to get beyond that, i.e. to go from an I.D. to the Christian god. So all his talk about an I.D. and thinking about an ID gets him nowhere. But honestly, talking from experience, I wouldn’t waste my time. People who quote the bible, OT or NT, to prove anything about their god just don’t get it and won’t get it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 September 2017 03:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  18
Joined  2017-09-01

I draw conclusion he would made. The answer to that was “if we cannot tell the difference between higher being, and a god, is there really any difference”. So i tried to argue what if that being isnt god, but devil and we ended up discussing that he “feels it to be right”. At that point the discussion is ridiculous and pointless.

I would not start to argue with him if he would claim that everything in the Bible is right and literally true. He clearly accepted certain scientific facts, but he looked upon one figure in NT, thought he might be smart guy and adopted his opinion - its actually nice piece of poetry, but thats all. I could start mention some simple arguments that “some things just happen to exist” and assuming they have purpose or designer is just an assumption, and that the figure he mentions is probably a fictional character…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 September 2017 09:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1307
Joined  2005-01-14
Offler - 07 September 2017 07:16 AM

If you are a designer, you will draw the plans of a building with everything it its included in it. The plan shows the building in one particular moment, and thats the moment when its completed.

That’s a good point.  Another argument you might try is that every designer in our experience had to learn HOW to do it.  At the very least, there would be a lot of trial and error involved, wouldn’t there?  What universe did God practice on before he designed this universe?

The thing is that earlier ideas about Earth and Universe in general were relatively static. Universe was not expanding, continents were not drifting, organisms were not evolving. Scientific method changed this perception.

If there is a claim that everything is “part of a plan” you as a designer would spend an eternity… Now lets invent atom of copper, which will be part of the electric lines in the building… now lets design that this window will crack after some time… and keep designing every stage of decay of later abandoned building, but up to the stage that every atom and sub-atomic particle of the building will evaporate at time when universe will end.

Therefore its more and more apparent that change itself is a good argument against inteligent desing, yet I look for a way how to explain that.

That’s another good point.  Life in particular is very complex.  Every time you introduce another species to the mix, you’d have to look carefully around to see if it changed the ecosystem any.  You’d have to be continually making adjustments.  But I suspect anyone who wants to believe in God would just tell you that was another sign of what an amazing God he was.  What else has God got to do with his time.  It’s not like he’s playing “Empires at War” with Fate and the Lady on Cori Celesti.  smile

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 September 2017 10:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  18
Joined  2017-09-01

Its known that 99% of all species already died out, so the small victory which could be gained on this base is “so he is not perfect” or “he had learned it the hard way”. So we can scratch “all knowing”.

In both such cases i can go to George Carlin’s “Something its not right” or Hitchens’s “We are part of cruel experiment”. There is also one lingual fallacy. What people call “creating”, is actually re-purposing, or transformation.

So… to me it crumbles like a house of cards, but to him “Paul of Tarsus says that idea was here first, therefore there had to be mind of the God”.

What makes more sense to me are “Antrophomorhic personifications”. If you as a horse how looks his god, he will describe a horse to you. In some way we as a species evolved to be designers in a sense. If you ask a men then human shaped designer is in a way closest to that.

[ Edited: 08 September 2017 10:55 AM by Offler ]
Profile