Being intelligent and rational sometimes means acknowledging that there are things we don't currently understand.
Why can't you just admit you rely on Scientists to answer these questions for you? You have no independent thought outside of what Scientists tell you to think..
If I lived 5,000 years ago and I saw an eclipse, I'd have two basic options available to me: either say it's something strange I don't comprehend, or attribute it to the divine actions of some god. Which would have been the more rational approach?
Perhaps, perhaps not. There are several ancient cultures that were able to predict both solar and lunar eclipses with good accuracy, which makes me believe they understood how they occurred..
Not sure about the ones from 5,000 years ago though, as that's a long time.
Most of the arguments for "intelligent design" are just modern variations on the same theme.
The arguments for intelligent design have become more sophisticated due to the increase in knowledge on living creatures and the Universe.
Yes, you have told me that. And it's possible you've even convinced yourself that it's true.
But it's not. It's a relatively modern
religious-political agenda designed to insinuate creationism into the teaching of science using deception.
Oh I have no doubt that intelligent design has been used for religious and political purposes, and may even have had it's inception in such...
That's not to say that it's automatically worthless however as it does ask some valid concerns..
There's nothing wrong with it for a religion. Feel free to discuss it in your church. It has nothing to do with science.
Sorry to disappoint you, but you are not dealing with some ignorant bible thumper. I am not a member of any Church or Religion..
You have a very myopic and ignorant view point if you think God and religion are inseparable.
I think I'm more informed and better able or more willing to reason on scientific matters.
We shall see.
1. Yes, so? This is like saying that slavery was okay because many great men owned slaves.
Terrible analogy. Anyway, you insinuated that Creationism was unscientific and naïve. I then gave several examples of great scientists and thinkers who were Creationists.
Also, you are ignorant if you think Science and God have always been at odds. For
MOST of Scientific history, Scientists labored with the belief that the Universe was inherently intelligible and sensical, because it was created by a Super Intelligent Creator..
2. How many current scientists and thinkers are creationists? A vanishingly small percentage.
You have absolutely no idea how many current scientists and thinkers are creationists, so don't even pretend you do..
3. Some of the older thinkers were the product of their times, brainwashed in a society where heresy often exposed one to physical danger. They also didn't have the benefit of our current understanding of evolution and cosmology.
Right, so Copernicus, who was the first western thinker to formulate the heliocentric principle which went against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and Society, was obviously "brainwashed." D:
This is a new low for you. You forget, or want to forget that these men were great because of their revolutionary thinking, which at many times put them at odds with other thinkers and Society at large in their day..
4. Invoking Einstein shows you understand little of his religious views. He never believed in the sort of "Creator" that you do. In fact, he considered the notion of this sort of "personal god" to be "childlike".
Please inform me, what sort of Creator I believe in, since you know me so fucking well.. I already told you once that you're not dealing with some ignorant bible thumper.
In fact, I already said I was a Deist (just like Einstein) in post # 408, so I know damn well that Einstein didn't believe in a personal God..
It's left "unanswered" because the answer is implied and everyone knows what the answer is, and ID as a movement is inherently dishonest.
I never denied that most ID believers believe that the designer is the Creator. However, it's one thing to believe and another to identify..
Again, if it's "unanswered", why do you capitalize every noun that you use to make reference to this great "unanswered" being?
I've already answered this question. Believing is not the same as actively identifying.
If you can claim the universe was created by a being with no causal explanation and that was always there, why cannot I just say the universe itself has no causal explanation and was always there?
And you claim to be a reasonable man and have great knowledge of Science :\
For your information, according to your precious Scientists the Universe had a
BEGINNING. They call this event the Big Bang. Time, Space, Matter, Energy etc all had their origins with this amazing event.
Now, I'm sure you know all of this, so why are you asking me why you can't say "the Universe itself has no causal explanation and was always there?"
Duh! It has a causal explanation, because the Universe is material!
Your "creator" adds nothing.
God is immaterial and thus not subject to requiring a cause..
Incorrect. Read what I said again: "Lack of evidence of theory A does not constitute evidence for theory B. It is entirely possible that coded information could have developed on its own."
And once again, you have zero evidence that coded information could have developed on it's own.
You claim that the creation of the universe is the work of some (supposedly) unknown "Creator". That is an act of faith.
It's an act of reason, based on facts I know about the Universe and Life.
My position is that the creation of the universe and abiogenesis are currently unsolved problems. That is not an act of faith. It is an admission that we don't know the answer yet.
And what if one day, Scientists decide that Intelligence undoubtedly played a central role in the creation of the Universe and of Life.
Whatever will you do with yourself then?
See above. If your "Creator" requires no causal explanation, the universe itself doesn't either. If the universe requires a causal explanation, so does your "Creator".
This logic is wrong. The Universe
DOES have a causal explanation (the Big Bang) because it is material. God does not require a causal explanation because It is immaterial and not subject to causation.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp for God's sake..
Because Consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, much like matter and energy. And if it's immaterial, then that lends credence to the belief that the origin or source of the Universe was
IMMATERIAL in nature......ie God.
Sorry, don't understand the question.
It's quite simple. I'm asking whether or not you can tell if something is designed or not.
Is this manmade or natural?
Nice try but I've seen that structure before so I know it's natural.
What would you have answered 1,000 years ago?
While there are some natural structures that look man made, for the most part, natural structures look natural, wholly distinct from man made ones.
Now you will say that life is far more complex than columnar basalt, and you'd be correct. But life evolves -- rock doesn't.
There's no natural force that could explain how atoms and molecules self combine into more complex forms, and gain consciousness..
Facebook
Twitter