Current Events > Intelligent Design is the worst argument I have ever heard.

(+) Yeah! (+)

_OujiDoza_ posted...

Vindris_SNH posted...

_OujiDoza_ posted...

Explain.

No, the burden is on you to explain how faith does intrinsically stunt intellectual growth.

Simple enough; look no further than "God of the gaps" theory.

You're talking about God being used as an explanation for things not explained by science? Except that is not an intrinsic quality of faith. Not everyone who practices a faith based religion thinks that way.
---

thanosibe posted...

I swear if intelligent design weren't associated with the Christian god

In what other form does intelligent design exist? Religion, and particularly Christianity is the reason intelligent design as a concept even exists.
---

Funkydog posted...

HippopotamusRex posted...

These entities are not on the same tennis court here. This again places them both along the cause-effect chain after the prime mover when one of these entities is the prime mover. You can certainly make them both follow the same rules, but in so doing it you give up any claim that you are dealing with the prime mover. The argument changes as soon as you put them on the same court. If you find the comparison symmetrical then somewhere along the line we've lost the prime mover as one of the examples in the discussion.

So basically "god did it because god is god"

Why can't the universe's creation be on the same level as god? It just seems an arbitrary line you've made to support your theory. They either both need to be held up to this standard of "beyond our understanding" or neither are and are just creations of our own mind.

Still placing the prime mover on the cause-effect chain. It won't ever make sense this way.

They can't be on the same level because the universe deals in cause-effect. There's no need to ask the question of a prime mover if they were on the same level because you could answer any question on that level by examining the universe itself. Putting them at the same level makes any answer of a god redundant so of course it makes no sense to have them at the same level. The different standard comes in because our standard of cause and effect absolutely falls apart before the big bang.
---

r_OujiDoza_ posted...

Religion, and particularly Christianity is the reason intelligent design as a concept even exists.

Intelligent design theory started and was popular WAY before Christianity.
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

r_OujiDoza_ posted...

Religion, and particularly Christianity is the reason intelligent design as a concept even exists.

Intelligent design theory started and was popular WAY before Christianity.

And it eventually lost steam as science progressed, but guess who picked it up and used it as a model for God's plan?
---

HippopotamusRex posted...

Still placing the prime mover on the cause-effect chain. It won't ever make sense this way.

They can't be on the same level because the universe deals in cause-effect. There's no need to ask the question of a prime mover if they were on the same level because you could answer any question on that level by examining the universe itself. Putting them at the same level makes any answer of a god redundant so of course it makes no sense to have them at the same level. The different standard comes in because our standard of cause and effect absolutely falls apart before the big bang.

It still sounds like you are just saying "god did it because god is god" but trying to be fancy about it. Who is to say the universe's creation wasn't on the same level, before order/rules were established.

Before the universe began, time simply was not a thing. Rules/reality and everything else simply were not concepts, heck nothing was at all until the point that it was. Either everything follows that concept, or nothing does (rather than one entity not, and everything else following rules when rules didn't exist) It simply cannot make sense for rules to be obeyed by a reality that does not yet exist, with rules that don't exist.
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

Actually, lots of people believe that an intelligent creator simply set the events of evolution into motion, and perhaps guided them.

And there's one of the reasons why God is so blatantly man-made. As our understanding of the universe and humanity gets larger, God's role in it gets smaller. He has gone from creating literal stars, people, and dirt from nothing to "guiding evolution" and setting off the big bang.

God is a gap-filler. He exists in the places we can't explain (or are difficult to explain) to make them more digestible.
---

Funkydog posted...

HippopotamusRex posted...

Still placing the prime mover on the cause-effect chain. It won't ever make sense this way.

They can't be on the same level because the universe deals in cause-effect. There's no need to ask the question of a prime mover if they were on the same level because you could answer any question on that level by examining the universe itself. Putting them at the same level makes any answer of a god redundant so of course it makes no sense to have them at the same level. The different standard comes in because our standard of cause and effect absolutely falls apart before the big bang.

It still sounds like you are just saying "god did it because god is god" but trying to be fancy about it. Who is to say the universe's creation wasn't on the same level, before order/rules were established.

Before the universe began, time simply was not a thing. Rules/reality and everything else simply were not concepts, heck nothing was at all until the point that it was. Either everything follows that concept, or nothing does (rather than one entity not, and everything else following rules when rules didn't exist) It simply cannot make sense for rules to be obeyed by a reality that does not yet exist, with rules that don't exist.

Then how do you explain the energy from the big bang? What moved the first object? Your solution ends up with an endless chicken/egg situation.
---

HippopotamusRex posted...

Then how do you explain the energy from the big bang? What moved the first object? Your solution ends up with an endless chicken/egg situation.

Therefore it must be God.

It's funny that you (and others) ask "well how do you explain" to the guy next to you, but people have asked God that same thing for ages and he still hasn't gotten back to you - maybe his voice mailbox is full?

Snarky, I know...that just kinda irks me.
---

_OujiDoza_ posted...

Vindris_SNH posted...

r_OujiDoza_ posted...

Religion, and particularly Christianity is the reason intelligent design as a concept even exists.

Intelligent design theory started and was popular WAY before Christianity.

And it eventually lost steam as science progressed, but guess who picked it up and used it as a model for God's plan?

My point still stands.
---

HippopotamusRex posted...

Then how do you explain the energy from the big bang? What moved the first object? Your solution ends up with an endless chicken/egg situation.

I don't have an explanation, and nor does Science. But it doesn't claim to have all the answers and just making up an easy one when we don't know is rather foolish. Just because we don't understand something yet, doesn't mean we need to create some mythological entity that did it for us.

It can be a scary thought, and god is comforting so I don't really begrudge anyone who finds comfort in religion (for whatever reason it might be, really) but I don't think it actually offers answers but is more akin to a comforting word a parent might tell a scared child to shield them from reality.

Using god just creates another endless "chicken and egg" case as well. It is just the same, but with an extra agent thrown into it because...??
---

_OujiDoza_ posted...

HippopotamusRex posted...

Then how do you explain the energy from the big bang? What moved the first object? Your solution ends up with an endless chicken/egg situation.

Therefore it must be God.

It's funny that you (and others) ask "well how do you explain" to the guy next to you, but people have asked God that same thing for ages and he still hasn't gotten back to you - maybe his voice mailbox is full?

Snarky, I know...that just kinda irks me.

Now you are conflating God (I noticed you capitalized it) with the concept of a god. It shows exactly where your mind and your bias is in this.

Your explanation wants to encompass everything in cause and effect and has an infinite regression problem. The concept of a god allows working along the lines of cause and effect but has no paradox at the start. What exactly is your problem with it again? Or is it just angry atheist angst?
---

Funkydog posted...

HippopotamusRex posted...

Then how do you explain the energy from the big bang? What moved the first object? Your solution ends up with an endless chicken/egg situation.

I don't have an explanation, and nor does Science. But it doesn't claim to have all the answers and just making up an easy one when we don't know is rather foolish. Just because we don't understand something yet, doesn't mean we need to create some mythological entity that did it for us.

It can be a scary thought, and god is comforting so I don't really begrudge anyone who finds comfort in religion (for whatever reason it might be, really) but I don't think it actually offers answers but is more akin to a comforting word a parent might tell a scared child to shield them from reality.

Using god just creates another endless "chicken and egg" case as well. It is just the same, but with an extra agent thrown into it because...??

It's literally impossible to talk any further about this with you. You still don't get it. There is no chicken and the egg beyond cause and effect. You are still placing the prime mover as having a mover.
---

_Near_ posted...

And there's one of the reasons why God is so blatantly man-made. As our understanding of the universe and humanity gets larger, God's role in it gets smaller.

On the contrary. God's role in creation isn't any smaller assuming he set in motion the events of evolution, or started the big bang, or whatever. In fact, that's even more impressive than just saying "let there be light", etc.

_Near_ posted...

God is a gap-filler. He exists in the places we can't explain (or are difficult to explain) to make them more digestible.

That certainly is a big reason why many people have decided to believe in God, and I think that's why belief in God will always exist; because I don't think we'll ever be able to prove everything scientifically.

You can't scientifically disprove an intelligent creator, and you can't scientifically prove his existence either. But there's nothing wrong with believing intelligent design is a thing.
---

HippopotamusRex posted...

It's literally impossible to talk any further about this with you. You still don't get it. There is no chicken and the egg beyond cause and effect. You are still placing the prime mover as having a mover.

I am not intentionally trying to be obtuse, if you believe I am. I simply feel you are allowing one agent more leeway that another because... that's what lets that agent be factual? I don't know.
Why can't the universe be this same entity as god, why is god needed in it all, if he plays the roles you claim? It just seems unneeded to me.
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

On the contrary. God's role in creation isn't any smaller assuming he set in motion the events of evolution, or started the big bang, or whatever. In fact, that's even more impressive than just saying "let there be light", etc.

No, it's smaller. Creating everything from scratch, violating all rules of nature and physics would be way more impressive. Being relegated to an uncaused cause or a prime mover is a pretty big blow. You don't need a god for that.

Vindris_SNH posted...

That certainly is a big reason why many people have decided to believe in God, and I think that's why belief in God will always exist; because I don't think we'll ever be able to prove everything scientifically.

You can't scientifically disprove an intelligent creator, and you can't scientifically prove his existence either

I agree. We won't ever understand everything, so god will always be an explanation for people who aren't comfortable with "I don't know."

Vindris_SNH posted...

But there's nothing wrong with believing intelligent design is a thing.

I'd say depends, but for the most part, it's intellectually dishonest. If you believe human beings and the earth are fine tuned, you probably don't have any credible evidence for that. And if you just flat out deny evolution (which is a common thing among people who believe ID) then you're just holding everyone back.

The problem with intelligent design is that it assumes an unseen, unconfirmed active role of a deity in the affairs of human origins. It's some mystic force that people only assume exists because of its supposed results, not because anything can be traced back to it. There no reason to believe this explanation when there is another explanation to why humans came to be which adequately and reasonably explains us.

I'll take the idea that God is the prime mover, sure. But any more personal involvement in humans is just hard to believe.
---

_Near_ posted...

I'll take the idea that God is the prime mover, sure. But any more personal involvement in humans is just hard to believe.

Him being a prime mover still seems to me to be a pointless and unneeded addition. At that point... why add something extra in other than to say "god did it"
---

_Near_ posted...

No, it's smaller. Creating everything from scratch, violating all rules of nature and physics would be way more impressive. Being relegated to an uncaused cause or a prime mover is a pretty big blow. You don't need a god for that.

Setting in motion events in a way that you know will lead to a particular outcome is just as impressive as outright creating them, IMO. Having billions of years of foresight, knowing that a snap of your finger will accomplish something that far into the future... yeah.

_Near_ posted...

god will always be an explanation for people who aren't comfortable with "I don't know."

I think, for most, it's not about being uncomfortable with the unknown, it's about what makes sense to them.

_Near_ posted...

I'd say depends

I agree. Believing in ID can be an intellectual detriment, but as discussed previously in this thread, faith does not intrinsically stunt intellectual growth.

_Near_ posted...

I'll take the idea that God is the prime mover, sure. But any more personal involvement in humans is just hard to believe.

That's all this thread is about, accepting that the basic idea of "Intelligent Design" is a reasonable possibility (even if you don't agree with it). God's personal involvement with humans is another discussion entirely.
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

Setting in motion events in a way that you know will lead to a particular outcome is just as impressive as outright creating them, IMO. Having billions of years of foresight, knowing that a snap of your finger will accomplish something that far into the future... yeah.

The foresight and knowledge is different than just causing it. Being the cause of the big bang doesn't necessarily mean you know everything that will happen because of it.

Vindris_SNH posted...

That's all this thread is about, accepting that the basic idea of "Intelligent Design" is a reasonable possibility (even if you don't agree with it). God's personal involvement with humans is another discussion entirely.

Well no, ID is explicitly about God fine-tuning humans and the universe. That's where we get the name - because it tries to set itself apart from natural selection. A design cannot simply be setting off an explosion billions of years ago. It requires an active role in the development of the universe and humanity, which is what most of IDers believe.
---

_OujiDoza_ posted...

You're not agnostic, you're fake as hell.

Says who you?
---

HypnoCoosh posted...

_OujiDoza_ posted...

You're not agnostic, you're fake as hell.

Says who you?

Yes, me!
---

I gave up doing a computer coding class and thats scribble compared to the mechanisms governing reality, nothing is arbitrary. Our universe was created by a higher power, something that transcends this realm, the supernatural. We ourselves are supernatural compared to our relationship with technology, the chain of command doesnt end with us
---

The entirely of intelligent design is anchored on the presupposition that the universe as we perceive it now is as it's supposed to be, and that its ability to sustain sapient life is evidence of it's successful design. The train of logic behind that supposition is the same anthrocentric thought that propped up the geocentric organization of the universe for centuries. It's like we're forgetting an oft repeated lesson that we are not the center of the universe.
---

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
---

Dont die a fool
---

You realize you're not even talking about intelligent design right now but literally attempting the filibuster the topic.
---

Isn't the idea that aliens found a planet with primitive life and modified it to fit their design also intelligent design?
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Isn't the idea that aliens found a planet with primitive life and modified it to fit their design also intelligent design?

It would be, but that's no more credible than more conventional interpretations of intelligent design.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Isn't the idea that aliens found a planet with primitive life and modified it to fit their design also intelligent design?

The problem with that is, is that it's even more pointless. Cause the aliens had to come about in some way. So the aliens evolved and we were created by them - why include the aliens as that sort or middle man when there's no reason to think aliens were involved?
---

It's obvious that God created the Earth and then set in motion the event that eventually led to his ultimate creation: Kickass giant reptiles. These creatures were God's intention and they lived on the planet for hundreds of millions of years. This is undeniable truth.

Unfortunately, flawed as he is, he failed to predict a giant meteorite that hit the Earth and pretty much wiped out his glorious creations. Many years later, some weird monkey looking things took over the planet and now think they are God's intended creation (FUCKING LOL) when in fact they are just an unfortunate side-effect.
---

On topic though, creationists claiming that the act of creation was the big bang that eventually led to humans is the most laughable backtracking in the history of mankind. Same with people who think "intelligent design" is an idea that can exist alongside evolution. It's basically people who were completely and utterly BTFO by science and shown their beliefs are factually wrong and are now trying to shoe-horn their batshit insane theories into the scientific model and claim that was always the idea.
---

Link HT posted...

On topic though, creationists claiming that the act of creation was the big bang that eventually led to humans is the most laughable backtracking in the history of mankind. Same with people who think "intelligent design" is an idea that can exist alongside evolution. It's basically people who were completely and utterly BTFO by science and shown their beliefs are factually wrong and are now trying to shoe-horn their batshit insane theories into the scientific model and claim that was always the idea.

Those ideas and arguments only get thrown in the water if they're talking about the Judeo Christian God, their still pretty valid if they're just talking about a different creator all together. There's the Deist belief that a supernatural being did create us, but left us like a deadbeat dad on our own to survive, hence survival of the fittest. There's no way the Judeo Christian God from the bible can coexist with evolution because that brings up a lot of inconsistencies with the genesis accounts, or the fact that a supposedly all knowing God would use one of the longest and inefficient way to create us or the fact that survival of the fittest would be the opposite of an all loving God would have us do to one another.
---

Prestoff posted...

There's the Deist belief that a supernatural being did create us, but left us like a deadbeat dad on our own to survive, hence survival of the fittest.

Yeah, this is the most reasonable belief in god, because it contains the least assumptions.

Sadly, it isn't more popular.

And it doesn't address the concept of ID.
---

Astrophysics for people in a hurry is a badass book. Beats religion.

TheGrindery posted...

Astrophysics for people in a hurry is a badass book. Beats religion.

I'll have to give it a read.
---

_Near_ posted...

Prestoff posted...

There's the Deist belief that a supernatural being did create us, but left us like a deadbeat dad on our own to survive, hence survival of the fittest.

Yeah, this is the most reasonable belief in god, because it contains the least assumptions.

Sadly, it isn't more popular.

And it doesn't address the concept of ID.

It's also not based on any religion. I mean, you're free to make up your own religion or whatever but that's not what people believe. That's just shoehorning a god's existence into whatever it is humans can't explain yet. The problem with this is that god's role will be diminished as science advances and the number of inexplicable phenomenon decreases, to the point where he's basically useless.

It also fails to address the most basic problem: If a god created the universe then what created the god? If you say "nothing" then that's a cop-out because the only reason god was brought into this was because you needed something to explain the universe. If you believe something can come from nothing then there is no need for a god at all. If you don't believe something can come from nothing then you're going to need another god to explain the first one, and you're back to the same problem: it's turtles all the way down.
---

Link HT posted...

I mean, you're free to make up your own religion or whatever but that's not what people believe.

That's what everyone else did. Doesn't make the Deist God any less credible than the other Gods born out of religious doctrines. It probably makes it more credible since it doesn't have all the religious doctrines as baggage.

Link HT posted...

. If you believe something can come from nothing then there is no need for a god at all. If you don't believe something can come from nothing then you're going to need another god to explain the first one, and you're back to the same problem: it's turtles all the way down.

I think the point is that God is the only thing that can come from nothing because it exists outside the rules of the universe. But when you start going down the path of things that happened before time was even a thing, it kind of gets muddied up.

Personally, I'm fine with admitting that I don't know how the universe started. Claiming that it's a god seems needless and superfluous.
---

_Near_ posted...

I think the point is that God is the only thing that can come from nothing because it exists outside the rules of the universe.

Which is a non-argument and has no place in a logical discussion.

_Near_ posted...

Personally, I'm fine with admitting that I don't know how the universe started.

Nobody does and people who claim they do are deluded. The best humanity has to go by is the big bang theory which is based on scientific study and observations.
---

_OujiDoza_ posted...

TheGrindery posted...

Astrophysics for people in a hurry is a badass book. Beats religion.

I'll have to give it a read.

It's by Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Intelligence design wasn't even created as a real argument. It is a wedge argument created to sneak Christian creationism into schools.
---

TheGrindery posted...

_OujiDoza_ posted...

TheGrindery posted...

Astrophysics for people in a hurry is a badass book. Beats religion.

I'll have to give it a read.

It's by Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Even better.
---

Far too much scientism in this topic. When we are dealing with unexplained phenomena we are in the realm of speculation. We can't assume ID is untrue for lack of current evidence, nor can we assume it is true for lack of current evidence. Agnosticism is the only answer.
---

Intelligent Design actually makes a lot of sense if you think about it. Certainly more than thinking our existence is mere coincidence.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Nazism and eugenics aren't arguments in and of themselves. TC said worst argument, ie reasoning and justification for persuasion. Arguments are different from ideas.

I think it's pretty easy to present either of those things as arguments, such as how the Nazis presented the holocaust as a solution for any number of societal woes, or eugenics was used as an argument against interracial marriage. Even if you disqualify that, for some reason, it still doesn't change the fact that there are a number of much, much worse arguments out there.

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

I don't think you even understand with I.D is.

The belief that some supernatural deity created the universe to function the way it does, with things such as evolution being part of the design. I'm not sure why it has to be an inherently Christian spinoff.

96 posts and only post 2 was needed tbh
---

I don't necessarily have a problem with their being a much higher being unbounded by spacetime

HOWEVER

Evolution is real and it is why all life is how it is. The issue with ID is not the existence of the designer. The issue is that evolution, an observable phenomenon and a theory backed up by so much stuff, explains everything more easily
---

There is no reason whatsoever to accept the claim of intelligent design.

Dragonblade01 posted...

There is no reason whatsoever to accept the claim of intelligent design.

There is equally no reason whatsoever to not accept the claim of intelligent design.
---

thanosibe posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

There is no reason whatsoever to accept the claim of intelligent design.

There is equally no reason whatsoever to not accept the claim of intelligent design.

Actually there is. The reason not to accept the claim is that it hasn't provided sufficient reason to accept it. That's how all claims work.

thanosibe posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

There is no reason whatsoever to accept the claim of intelligent design.

There is equally no reason whatsoever to not accept the claim of intelligent design.

There is equally no reason whatsoever to not accept the claim that you are a serial killer.
---