Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time.
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 106 of 187 (811430)
06-07-2017 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Taq
06-07-2017 1:37 PM


Ultimately, the argument we are using is that if the evidence is consistent with natural processes, then we conclude that natural processes did it...
Now, you could argue that some tricksy deity just made everything look like it occurred through natural processes, but what would be the point?
I don't understand this point at all. How else could it possibly look? If you design a universe and it has processes in it then those processes will, no doubt, look natural. I mean what else would a designer use if not natural processes? Or put another way, whatever a designer might use would become a defacto natural process.
As to the question of why is the hypothetical designer is not immediately apparent I don't know but I don't think deception is the only option. Being a wee little human in a 14.5 billion yr old universe with a wee little brain might be another possibility.
As soon as the physical evidence doesn't matter, then the conversation is over.
No one is saying that the evidence doesn't matter. I am just taking exception to what is being inferred from the evidence and trying to be rigorous with the logic.
Is it possible to identify ourselves as being part of a designed system from the inside of that system?
Actually, the whole point is for ID/creationists to once again demonstrate that ID/creationism is a dogmatic religious belief that can never be falsified by any evidence, no matter what that evidence is.
Better check with jar on that but yeah. My objective is to examine my own belief on the subject.
The claims that we can't "judge design" just further support that conclusion.
I am just saying that any apparent localized disorder in the goings on of the universe isn't a very robust argument against the existence of a designer.
edit
but apparently we are not talking about that
Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Taq, posted 06-07-2017 1:37 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Taq, posted 06-08-2017 10:58 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 108 of 187 (811432)
06-07-2017 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by New Cat's Eye
06-07-2017 7:40 PM


...from there is a designer and there could be a designer.
This is a critical distinction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-07-2017 7:40 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 111 of 187 (811521)
06-09-2017 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Coyote
06-07-2017 10:26 PM


Re: Any designer is irrelevant.
Coyote writes:
Phat writes:
The whole concept of God is falsifiable.
how?
Off topic but on point, this is the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Coyote, posted 06-07-2017 10:26 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024