Topic: ID Theory Refutes Notion That Christian God Designed Life (Read 23046 times)

Cogito · « **Reply #40 on:** May 24, 2006, 01:30:37 AM »

Quote

You said 'universe=all that is real' which excludes the possibility of God being real, and so obviously is no definition a Christian could accept. Certainly, no theist could accept it.

Why? It would seem that only if a Christian includes the phrase "a thing which is not real" in the definition of "god" or posits the existence of a god outside the set of "all that is real" (which seems to be nonsensical) would that Christian not be able to accept my definition.

JustLiz · « **Reply #41 on:** May 24, 2006, 06:45:48 AM »

It seems to me that the conclusion of your argument is skewed. A more accurate statement would be in line with my (ignored) post on the "Argument Against Design" thread. Here's that post -

Quote

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, this is my summary of your position -

From strictly the perspective of knowledge and logic (I think) -

The word "design" can have no meaning for us because if everything is designed, we have nothing to contrast it with and thus no basis for the word to have any meaning. In the same way that the word "good" only becomes meaningful when we experience something "not-good."

So arguing for ID is a non-argument (I don't know the technical logical term) because there is no way to compare how a designed universe differs from a non-designed universe because we don't have access to a non-designed universe.(or designed, depending upon your personal belief system.) Thus, design neither proves nor disproves a Creator.

Is this what you're saying?

I don't know that ID theory claims that it can contrast our designed universe with an un-designed universe, or that it can contrast design with lack-of-design because it is finding design in everything in the physical universe.

So, for your argument to have any meat, you need to provide an example where ID contrasts something in this universe with something else in this universe and base your arguement on that one thing specifically. Otherwise, you are writing something into ID that just isn't there.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #42 on:** May 24, 2006, 07:06:24 AM »

"It would seem that only if a Christian includes .... posits the existence of a god outside the set of "all that is real" (which seems to be nonsensical) would that Christian not be able to accept my definition."

Obviously God would be included in most definitions of 'all that is real,' but you've gone and identified 'all that is real' with the universe, and so if the existence of 'God' is not to be precluded, God must = the Universe.

Sorry, pal. No Christian could accept a definition for 'universe' which excludes the possibility that a real God could exist beyond the universe, therefore no Christian could accept p2 (your latest.. uh I better paste it...
p2: No particular thing in the universe can 'appear' to be designed by some designer unless some particular thing in the universe appears not to be designed by that designer. )

Your p2 defines the universe as all that is real so it confines the designer, who must is presumed to be real, to be a part of the universe. There is no way that a Christian could accept p2 with that definition of universe in play.

TheDoctor · « **Reply #43 on:** May 24, 2006, 07:37:40 AM »

Quote from: Cogito

Quote
Cog, you've actually made me quite angry. What I quoted was a direct cut and paste of your ORIGINAL premise 3. How DARE you try to make me look like an idiot when you're the one that's changing the very structure of your argument in the MIDDLE of a debate! I'm very, VERY tempted to remove the ability to edit posts because of you, by the way.

You do what you want but don't try to pretend that it has anything to do with MY intellectual integrity. I CLEARLY pointed out that I was changing the wording of the original argument. This has not affected the conclusion of it one whit.

Sure it has.

Quote

Have I tried in any way to deny that your quotes of the argument as it was originally worded were incorrect? No.

Did I make any attempt to deny that I had changed the wording, although not the intent, of my premises? Of course not. And why should I? You haven't made the slightest dent in the argument as it stood previously or as it stands now.

Sure you did, when you claimed I misquoted you.

Quote

How has the argument "substantially" changed? What point were you attempting to make? Lay out your rebuttal, if you've got one, and we'll let the readers of this thread judge its merit.

If you cannot refute the argument and feel the need to change the subject with this crap, have at it.

If you'll notice, Cog, I haven't even started to attack your actual argument as I'm still trying to nail down your definitions.

TheDoctor · « **Reply #44 on:** May 24, 2006, 07:43:56 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

Obviously God would be included in most definitions of 'all that is real,' but you've gone and identified 'all that is real' with the universe, and so if the existence of 'God' is not to be precluded, God must = the Universe.

Sorry, pal. No Christian could accept a definition for 'universe' which excludes the possibility that a real God could exist beyond the universe, therefore no Christian could accept p2 (your latest.. uh I better paste it...
p2: No particular thing in the universe can 'appear' to be designed by some designer unless some particular thing in the universe appears not to be designed by that designer. )

Your p2 defines the universe as all that is real so it confines the designer, who must is presumed to be real, to be a part of the universe. There is no way that a Christian could accept p2 with that definition of universe in play.

I agree with sntjohnny on this.

TheDoctor · « **Reply #45 on:** May 24, 2006, 09:43:14 AM »

Cog,

Does your definition of "universe" contain the "multiverse" (assuming in this case that the multiverse actually exists)?

Bdean · « **Reply #46 on:** May 24, 2006, 12:31:40 PM »

Quote

p2: No particular thing in the universe can 'appear' to be designed by some designer unless some particular thing in the universe appears not to be designed by that designer.

Is it possible that someone can design a number of somethings, and that one designed something has an impact upon another designed something resulting in a new undesigned something?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #47 on:** May 24, 2006, 12:38:16 PM »

Or, can designed things break?

Cogito · « **Reply #48 on:** May 24, 2006, 12:50:53 PM »

Quote from: JustLiz

So arguing for ID is a non-argument (I don't know the technical logical term) because there is no way to compare how a designed universe differs from a non-designed universe because we don't have access to a non-designed universe.(or designed, depending upon your personal belief system.) Thus, design neither proves nor disproves a Creator.

Is this what you're saying?

No. Almost, but not precisely.

Depending only upon how one defines the phrase 'elements of design' ID theory IS capable of finding elements of design in the building blocks of life.

What ID theory is incapable of is finding the "elements of design" in life, if there are any to be found, of a designer who designed life and everything else in the universe, as well. This is because everything else in the universe will display those same elements of design just as surely as life will. Without contrast, nothing can appear.

From this it follows that if ID theory does find elements of design in the building blocks of life, then the design that it will have found will be that of a designer who did not design everything else in the universe as well as life.

This will be strong evidence against the notion that life, specifically, was designed by the Christian God if the Christian God is defined as a being who designed everything in the universe.

It will be strong evidence for the notion that life, specifically, was designed by a lesser being such as some form of extraterrestrial intelligence.

As for your last remark in the quote above, ("Thus, design neither proves nor disproves a Creator") -- when will you ever learn that NO result of any possible experiment can disprove the notion that some being exists outside of the universe? The claim itself is nonsensical. Upon what evidence is it possible to form the tiniest belief that there is an "outside" of the universe? If "universe" is defined as "all that is real" then clearly, by definition, nothing real can exist outside the universe.

If an outside of the universe existed, how would it be possible to know anything whatsoever about it? How could we, we trapped inside the universe, experience what is outside it?

The whole notion of "outside the universe" has arisen since the medieval Christian notion of a "heaven" located somewhere above the clouds evaporated. God had to be placed somewhere, so why not place him somewhere that doesn't exist? It's just more god-of-the-gaps stuff.

Cogito · « **Reply #49 on:** May 24, 2006, 01:02:22 PM »

Quote from: TheDoctor

I agree with sntjohnny on this.

So you believe (without a whit of evidence) that there is an "outside the universe" and you've elected to place your God in that gap out of harm's way. OK, you can do that.

But what does this have to do with the argument? If God is outside the universe, then obviously (I should think) we in the universe cannot compare any element of design that we find in the universe to any element of design that may or may not be inherent in God.

I mentioned earlier that I had actually helped your argument by placing God inside the universe, but evidently you didn't pick up on that. Instead, you remain determined to place your god in a completely speculative realm that cannot be experienced by humans. Great. This then eliminates God entirely as even a possible example of being a thing in the universe that is undesigned.

Works for me.

Cogito · « **Reply #50 on:** May 24, 2006, 01:08:16 PM »

Quote from: TheDoctor

Does your definition of "universe" contain the "multiverse" (assuming in this case that the multiverse actually exists)?

Define 'multiverse' and you'll probably be able to answer your own question since my definition of 'universe' is 'all that is real.'

Cogito · « **Reply #51 on:** May 24, 2006, 01:12:57 PM »

Quote from: Bdean

Is it possible that someone can design a number of somethings, and that one designed something has an impact upon another designed something resulting in a new undesigned something?

How is that possible if that someone is purported to have designed "ALL" things?

Which part of the word "ALL" is giving you a hard time? :)

Quote from: Ol' Blue Eyes

Or, can designed things break?

Oh, I suppose some could if the design is shoddy.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #52 on:** May 24, 2006, 01:13:23 PM »

lolol

Can we get an atheist in here that understands a 'whit' about Christianity to try to correct Cogito on some things?

As far as I'm concerned, no further discussion is necessary. The argument is framed in a way that no Christian, or even probably even no IDer, could possibly accept.

Cog, you might wish to return to my cumulative defense for Christian theism thread where you may find some partial affinity to some of your blather about 'outside the universe.'

Cogito · « **Reply #53 on:** May 24, 2006, 01:19:01 PM »

The only possible way for elements of design to appear in any particular thing is if those elements of design are missing in at least one other thing.

If all things in the universe were designed by a designer and thus all things contain the same elements of design, then it is impossible for any particular thing in the universe to 'appear' to be designed by that designer.

Placing such a designer outside the universe has no affect on this truth.

You've confused yourself once again, BE. You're getting get at that. :)

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #54 on:** May 24, 2006, 01:20:33 PM »

Its time for a parody thread.

TheDoctor · « **Reply #55 on:** May 24, 2006, 01:24:57 PM »

Quote from: Cogito

Quote from: TheDoctor
I agree with sntjohnny on this.

So you believe (without a whit of evidence) that there is an "outside the universe" and you've elected to place your God in that gap out of harm's way. OK, you can do that.

That's hardly why I would say this. However, your insistance on using non-standard definitions is quite frustrating, particularly in regards to your use of the word "universe." There are a growing number of physicists and mathematicians working on multiverse theory, a theory that assumes there is something outside of our universe.

Quote

But what does this have to do with the argument? If God is outside the universe, then obviously (I should think) we in the universe cannot compare any element of design that we find in the universe to any element of design that may or may not be inherent in God.

Who said anything about God being designed?

Quote

I mentioned earlier that I had actually helped your argument by placing God inside the universe, but evidently you didn't pick up on that. Instead, you remain determined to place your god in a completely speculative realm that cannot be experienced by humans. Great. This then eliminates God entirely as even a possible example of being a thing in the universe that is undesigned.

Works for me.

Cog, thanks for trying, buddy, but I'm not really needing any help. Working within your (what is this, third or fourth?) set of premises you've established that God must be the same as the universe. This is unacceptable to most (if not all) Christians. Further, you've eliminated the possibility of a God who is not able to be contained by the "universe".

Further, if you wish to use your current set of premises, you assume the existence of God.

TheDoctor · « **Reply #56 on:** May 24, 2006, 01:27:12 PM »

Quote from: Cogito

Quote from: Bdean
Is it possible that someone can design a number of somethings, and that one designed something has an impact upon another designed something resulting in a new undesigned something?

How is that possible if that someone is purported to have designed "ALL" things?

Which part of the word "ALL" is giving you a hard time? :)

So now humans are no longer capable of designing things?

Cogito · « **Reply #57 on:** May 24, 2006, 01:36:18 PM »

Just to even things up a bit, may I get a few questions answered?

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth [etc.]" -- Genesis 1, 2

What does this mean? Is it intended metaphorically? Is it intended literally? Is it intended in some other way?

By "created" should we also assume "designed"? If not, then in what way ought we to distinguish the two terms in respect to godly creation/design?

Is "heaven and earth; beasts of the field; fowl of the air; herb of the field; etc." allegorical for all that is real? If not, do some real things exist that were not created/designed by God?

Cogito · « **Reply #58 on:** May 24, 2006, 01:38:49 PM »

Quote from: TheDoctor

So now humans are no longer capable of designing things?

Did I say or even imply that they were not?

TheDoctor · « **Reply #59 on:** May 24, 2006, 01:39:53 PM »

Quote from: Cogito

Quote from: TheDoctor
So now humans are no longer capable of designing things?

Did I say or even imply that they were not?

Yes.

Quote from: Cogito

Quote
Bdean wrote:
Is it possible that someone can design a number of somethings, and that one designed something has an impact upon another designed something resulting in a new undesigned something?

How is that possible if that someone is purported to have designed "ALL" things?

Which part of the word "ALL" is giving you a hard time? :)

Author Topic: ID Theory Refutes Notion That Christian God Designed Life (Read 23046 times)