|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who designed the ID designer(s)? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You are saying the the IDer is a god, therefore a belief in your IDer is a faith in a god. Assuming he did have a valid deduction for a god, it simply being a god wouldn't necessitate faith. Especially if he has that evidence via the deduction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
RAZD writes: Hi Catholic Scientist,
Assuming he did have a valid deduction for a god, ... Especially if he has that evidence via the deduction. Point 1: he doesn't. I looked at the video, and it defines what is seen to be intelligent and then concludes that because it is intelligent that it must be due to a designer. There was nothing there about a prediction. Point 2: getting from discovering intelligence in the world to a designer is a big leap of faith, getting from that designer to the god of the bible is another big leap of faith. Point 3: logic is not fact\evidence, and logic alone is not enough to be a scientifically valid conclusion (no matter how much some would like it to be). Especially bad logic. Enjoy. Think about it this way: Faith is a personnal experience that only the individual knows if they're employing or not. If someone was convinced by some thing that an Intelligent Designer exists, and they were not employing faith in their maintanence of the belief that the designer exists, then they are not taking the designer on faith. Regardless of how good their evidence is, or if you can make their argument look like a statement of faith, it really comes down to how they've come to accept the belief. You know what I mean?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
In short — I think I agree with you on this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
2. My discoveries are not big leap of faith since everybody could test and falsify them. No one had ever defined "intelligence" scientifically and set boundary line between natural to intelligent. Even our best scientists today could never do that. 3. Yes, logic is not everything. That is why I had experiment, arguments and definitions. What experiment? How can we test it? I watched your video but it didn't make any sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The experiment about egg and tissue paper and how I detect intelligence. That's not an expirement....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes:
Then, that is denial.
The experiment about egg and tissue paper and how I detect intelligence.
That's not an expirement.... Right, I deny that it is an experiment.
Whats was that if not experiment? It looks like an attempt at a logical deduction.
No, u will never surely believe. Huh? Why not? Because I know what an experiment is and that it isn't one?
I don't care. Me neither.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You don't make science. U just make religion. Huh? Do you want to discuss this or not? Or do you run from everyone who disagrees with you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What is this thing with the egg and the tissue paper? Please explain. From Message 187quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The issue is not whether person {Y} has faith or came to believe, the issue is whether ID is a form of faith or not. What do you mean by "ID"? Are you talking about some thing independent of a person's belief? I'm talking about "the belief that an Intelligent Designer created the world". And if someone came to believe that from some kind of evidence, then it would not be a form of faith.
As soon as the IDer is identified as a god, then IDism is by definition a faith. I disagreeing with that specifically. If the person came to believe from evidence that a god intelligently designed the world, then they could hold that belief without faith. For example, an old man in a white beard floats down from the clouds and identifies himself as a god and explains that he designed the world. Accepting that would not necessarily have to be a form a faith. BTW, do you mean something different by "IDism" than just "ID"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What do you mean by "ID"? Are you talking about some thing independent of a person's belief? Yes, in the same way that christianity is faith independent of any particular christian person. Well, I would also argue that a person could come to belief in christianity without employing faith.
If someone has objective empirical evidence then they need to provide it. I am not aware of any, are you? Not everybody relies on objective empirical evidence to come to a belief, even with an absence of faith. Like I said before, it could even be just a logical deduction.
Absent the objective empirical evidence, the conclusions that an Intelligent Designer is involved would be based on faith. Not necessarily. If Jesus floated down from the sky and appeard solely to you one time and let you put your fingers in his side and explained to you about him being the son of god, etc., and then vanished... if you believed him and became a christian, you could hold that belief without faith. You could do the same with ID. Or, somebody could come up with a logical deduction that convinces them that ID is factual without having to use faith. Or, somebody could have a dream and then accept ID as a conclusion without needing to use faith. So, there are ways that ID can be believed without faith. On the other hand, ID really is based on faith. Its just that its not an absolute or de-facto things like you're making it out to be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yes. I don't run since I can show it. Will u run? But you're not showing anything... Edited by Catholic Scientist, : your -- > you're
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Not everybody relies on objective empirical evidence to come to a belief, even with an absence of faith. Like I said before, it could even be just a logical deduction. Belief without evidence is faith, faith that you believe your conclusion/etc is true. Okay, but the evidence doesn't have to be objective and empirical. The logical deduction, itself, could be the evidence. On the other hand, you could just as easily use this line or argument to say that everything is faith-based. You even have to have faith that the evidence you're seeing is real, but I don't see any merit in going that route. Where you been? Your health holding up? Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
. . . which is still faith in my book. I see. I do understand your position better, I just don't agree with your usage of the word "faith" here. And you also seem to be dichotomizing it too much for my preferences, in that your leaning too much towards: "its either science or its faith" I think you're diluting the meaning of "faith" here, from the kind of usage people mean when they say, like, that they have faith in Jesus. A guy that saw a UFO and now believes that aliens are real is operating under a differ "thing" than a Jesus freak. I suppose that both of those things could be called "faith", but I don't see your arguments here as acknowledging that there is a difference. You seem to be suggesting that belief in ID is more like the faith of the Jesus freak, and I'm trying to show you that if its more like the UFO guy, then calling it out as faith isn't all that helpful.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Hi again Catholic Scientist, thanks. No problem, RAZD, I hope all is well.
Faith, by definition, is believing something without evidence or proof: Ergo, if someone accepted ID from evidence or proof, then it would not be faith. I agree with you that ID is taken on faith, but I disagree that it must be. Do you accept that it is possible for someone to arrive at ID without faith? Regardless of if this has been shown to have happened or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Do you accept that it is possible for someone to arrive at ID without faith?
That would mean they have evidence. Which as of yet no one has provided.So no they can not arrive at ID without faith. You're such an idiot. I wrote:
quote: And you reply with: "no, it hasn't been shown" You have got to be trolling! But anyways, They have provided the evidence. We've seen it here where people have expressed that when they see all the beauty in the world they are convinced that it must have been designed. That is their evidence and they are comming to a conclusion. That is not a position of faith. That you don't consider that to be good evidnce doesn't undermine the fact that they are not reaching their position through faith.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024