1 of 4
1
Yet another “Intelligent design” argument
Posted: 07 September 2017 07:16 AM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  31
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:  1561
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
RankRank
Total Posts:  31
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:  1561
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
RankRank
Total Posts:  31
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:  1337
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
RankRank
Total Posts:  31
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
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2017 01:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  103
Joined  2017-10-26

Erich Von Daniken wrote a book titled “The chariots of the gods”. He didn’t pick the title, his publisher pressured him to use it. First nobody would even publish him as they thought he was crazy!! In it, he documents all instances where outer space aliens (or unknown unidentified beings) came by, made contact with the humans or outright created them, and promised to “come back” Just as Jesus is said to have promised he will do in the bible. He talks about those beings as perhaps other inhabitants of galaxies that are apparently much more advanced than humans are when it comes to the equipment and technologies they used or operated before the people who witnessed them doing so. So, humans being as primitive as they are, took them for gods, and across cultures and continents, they all are waiting for them to come back. South American indigenous tribes are apparently waiting for some amazing beings to come back, the Muz are waiting for Mehdi, the Christians are waiting for Christ, the Jews are waiting for (some say) the anti Christ (LOL.). In Russia and Australia the same is going on. etc.
He cited few bible verse that could hint the author having had similar experience as these various tribes. One of which is Ezekiel where it is clearly hinted he might have witnessed the visit of some UFO’s. He think they are angels if I remember correctly, but Erich matches all the given descriptions by Ezekiel to the specifications to a likely outer space Shuttle. He did good to document sites, objects and what not with pictures and additional framing reference. Really really good book.  One other thing. As additional examples, he site the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah as a possible Alien experiment that went bad so the whole region had to be cleaned out. and He theorizes that Lot’s wife supposedly “turning into salt” is actually her having been burnt by the nuclear Blast. He claim there are mysterious radiations at that site or another to this very day!!! Simply Fascinating.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2017 01:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  103
Joined  2017-10-26

PART II of my post


IN the process of trying to understand what the soup is going on, I read the bible few times from side to side and throughout, it continues to Obliviously assert that Jesus will come back “SOON”!!!! It has been now 2000 years. And any person with couple brain cells upstairs,  who would read that,  would compare it with the actually physical facts and think “what does mean the word “SOON” mean?!?!? It’s been 2000 year, Nobody is coming back.”. If the end of the book is false, the whole book catches fire as far as it being dictated by God.


This on one hand, on the other hand, when it comes to ID, there is a definition that I like and find to be reasonably honest and rational. And that is an old one given by the below guy:
“Creationism properly understood begins with the bible, and says “how can I fit the bible into the data of science?”. ID does not do that, ID is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as result of intelligence. ID is the minimum commitment scientifically to the possibility of detecting intelligent causation!!!”
~~Dr. Paul Nelson of BIOLA University~~

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2017 06:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1337
Joined  2005-01-14
InBetween - 30 October 2017 01:28 PM

Erich Von Daniken wrote a book titled “The chariots of the gods”. He didn’t pick the title, his publisher pressured him to use it. First nobody would even publish him as they thought he was crazy!! In it, he documents all instances where outer space aliens (or unknown unidentified beings) came by, made contact with the humans or outright created them, and promised to “come back” Just as Jesus is said to have promised he will do in the bible. He talks about those beings as perhaps other inhabitants of galaxies that are apparently much more advanced than humans are when it comes to the equipment and technologies they used or operated before the people who witnessed them doing so. So, humans being as primitive as they are, took them for gods, and across cultures and continents, they all are waiting for them to come back. South American indigenous tribes are apparently waiting for some amazing beings to come back, the Muz are waiting for Mehdi, the Christians are waiting for Christ, the Jews are waiting for (some say) the anti Christ (LOL.). In Russia and Australia the same is going on. etc.
He cited few bible verse that could hint the author having had similar experience as these various tribes. One of which is Ezekiel where it is clearly hinted he might have witnessed the visit of some UFO’s. He think they are angels if I remember correctly, but Erich matches all the given descriptions by Ezekiel to the specifications to a likely outer space Shuttle. He did good to document sites, objects and what not with pictures and additional framing reference. Really really good book.  One other thing. As additional examples, he site the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah as a possible Alien experiment that went bad so the whole region had to be cleaned out. and He theorizes that Lot’s wife supposedly “turning into salt” is actually her having been burnt by the nuclear Blast. He claim there are mysterious radiations at that site or another to this very day!!! Simply Fascinating.

What Von Daniken did was pure speculation.  He didn’t “document” anything.  His ideas weren’t new, he just had the good fortune to publish in the 70’s when people were hungering for science-sounding fantasies like this.  Of course nowadays there’s a whole series on the “History” channel about this silly stuff.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2017 04:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  103
Joined  2017-10-26

I disagree. Actually he was brutally relentlessly attacked for quite some time. His book didn’t pick up traffic right away. So one cannot say “Oh, it’s just people’s hunger for that kind of stuff.”  And There was nothing speculative about the foundation of that book. He travelled extensively to those sites and investigated them First hand. I personally find that book to be reasonably honest. I am not saying he’s the new messiah, but his material is most definitely food for thought. For example,  He took pictures of sculptures made by indigenous people of An Astronaut looking being clearly appearing to wear what seem to be an outer space suit and helmet. etc. He gave references to where those statutes can be viewed and examined. The indigenous people never seen such things as aerospace equipment. And the stuff is old as it has been there away before NASA was born. And on and on. The book is well substantiated.

[ Edited: 31 October 2017 04:55 PM by InBetween ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2017 04:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4170
Joined  2009-10-21
InBetween - 31 October 2017 04:44 PM

Him taking pictures of sculptures made by indigenous people of An Astronaut looking being clearly seeming to wear what seem to be an outer space suit and helmet. etc. He gives references to where those statutes can be viewed and examined. The indigenous people never seen such things as aerospace equipment. And the stuff is ooooold. Seems to have been there away before NASA was born. And on and on. The book is well substantiated. He is an Atheist. His claims should be further investigated not mocked.

He sounds like a tourist. He went and took some pictures and then wildly speculated about what they were and how they got there. This is not even close to scientific inquiry.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2017 05:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  103
Joined  2017-10-26
Lausten - 31 October 2017 04:53 PM
InBetween - 31 October 2017 04:44 PM

Him taking pictures of sculptures made by indigenous people of An Astronaut looking being clearly seeming to wear what seem to be an outer space suit and helmet. etc. He gives references to where those statutes can be viewed and examined. The indigenous people never seen such things as aerospace equipment. And the stuff is ooooold. Seems to have been there away before NASA was born. And on and on. The book is well substantiated. He is an Atheist. His claims should be further investigated not mocked.

He sounds like a tourist. He went and took some pictures and then wildly speculated about what they were and how they got there. This is not even close to scientific inquiry.

Read the book, Lausten. He might not be a scientist but, at this stage, I would not call him an amateur either. Very compelling argument he gave. And very believable.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2017 06:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7811
Joined  2009-02-26
InBetween - 31 October 2017 05:00 PM
Lausten - 31 October 2017 04:53 PM
InBetween - 31 October 2017 04:44 PM

Him taking pictures of sculptures made by indigenous people of An Astronaut looking being clearly seeming to wear what seem to be an outer space suit and helmet. etc. He gives references to where those statutes can be viewed and examined. The indigenous people never seen such things as aerospace equipment. And the stuff is ooooold. Seems to have been there away before NASA was born. And on and on. The book is well substantiated. He is an Atheist. His claims should be further investigated not mocked.

He sounds like a tourist. He went and took some pictures and then wildly speculated about what they were and how they got there. This is not even close to scientific inquiry.

Read the book, Lausten. He might not be a scientist but, at this stage, I would not call him an amateur either. Very compelling argument he gave. And very believable.

Evidence of old civilizations would not in any way support the concept of a creative supernatural God. It would be evidence of evolution.

You need to go back 14.7 billion years before can even begin to speak of a creative event which created this spacetime and the appearance of the very first atomic particles, let alone of ancient civilizations.

Given the immense space and time, it can be claimed with high confidence that the appearance of biochemical life was an almost inevitable probabilistic chemical process.

This presentation by Robert Hazen at the Carnegie Institute of Sciences explains how this process was almost certain to have begun and evolved of time.  The introduction is rather long , and the actual presentation starts at 25:10 where Dr. Hazen is actually introduced.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAQLgTwJ_A

Watch it, it is really very interesting and informative and easy to follow.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2017 06:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1337
Joined  2005-01-14
InBetween - 31 October 2017 04:44 PM

There was nothing speculative about the foundation of that book. He travelled extensively to those sites and investigated them First hand. I personally find that book to be reasonably honest. I am not saying he’s the new messiah, but his material is most definitely food for thought. For example,  He took pictures of sculptures made by indigenous people of An Astronaut looking being clearly appearing to wear what seem to be an outer space suit and helmet. etc. He gave references to where those statutes can be viewed and examined. The indigenous people never seen such things as aerospace equipment. And the stuff is old as it has been there away before NASA was born. And on and on. The book is well substantiated.

]I’m not saying that he didn’t travel to these places and take photographs. If that’s what you call “documentation”, sure.  It’s the conclusions he drew that are pure speculation.  Read the book with the eye of a skeptic, by which I mean ask yourself what kind of evidence he produces.  You’ll be astonished.  Time and time again, you’ll catch him saying, “What if…” or “let us suppose that…”  THEN he assumes that the case is proven and goes onto something else.

All of his conclusions are imagination, just like the “astronaut” you speak of.  He littered his books with myriads of pictures like that, so I’m not sure which one you’re actually talking about.  To me the vast majority of them are unimpressive, the figures are clearly wearing animal horns or some sort of ceremonial garb.  And the fact that no two of them are the same in all those corners of the world should tell you something, unless the Earth was the focal point for some kind of intergalactic convention.  The most famous one I can think of is the so-called “Palenque Astronaut”, which was actually carved on a lid of a Mayan burial chamber.  Superficially, he looks as if he’s in the cockpit of a spacecraft, looking intently into a viewscreen while he operates the controls.  But if you look really closely, you’ll see that the man is wearing a kilt, he’s barefoot, and “capsule” has openings in the side!

I respect your opinion, but I don’t think his evidence amounts to very much.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2017 07:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4170
Joined  2009-10-21
InBetween - 31 October 2017 05:00 PM

Read the book, Lausten. He might not be a scientist but, at this stage, I would not call him an amateur either. Very compelling argument he gave. And very believable.

As Aron Ra said, if you see something brown laying on the sidewalk with flies on it, do you pick it up to see what it is? “Read the book” is a dialog killing statement. It says, “I can’t explain the basic principles, but I believe them.” You presented terrible examples from someone who is claiming expertise in a field. There are thousands of others in that field, his work has been available for decades, yet, none of it has been confirmed, in fact it continues to be a joke to most.

You know, the Bible has lots of universal values and stories that explain how to be moral. It’s basically a guide for how to create a peaceful society. Read it.

If you can’t regurgitate his work, that’s fine. I can file this under “thing that I haven’t read the book about” and continue to use my general knowledge to determine the probability of it being wrong. But if you want to argue, “read the book” is not an argument.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 4
1