Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, July 30, 2007

Atheism and Intelligent Design

I have stated that one can be an atheist and IDist without any irony. The following is my reasoning:

ID does NOT say anything about worship. Nothing about who, when, where, why or how to worship.

ID does NOT require a belief in a "God".



Main Entry: athe•ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity



Main Entry: athe•ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity


It is now obvious by reading the commonly accepted definitions of "atheist" and "atheism" and coupling that with the fcat that ID does not require a belief in a "God", that one can be an atheist and an IDist without any conflicts.

Of course evolutionists can & will re-define atheism and ID so that there would be a conflict, but that is another story...

107 Comments:

  • At 8:35 AM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Hello Joe,

    Designer is the thing which makes the front-loading, isn't it? Can this designer be something other than a God? Is ıt possible?

    In the Dover trial Behe said designer may be non-supernatural for example aliens can be designer but if so then aliens will need a designer, too.

    IMO designer (the guy who makes the front-loading thing) needs to be supernatural. And this supernatural thing is obviously God, isn't it?

    Thus an ateist, who accepts the existence of a designer, as a result accepts the existence of a deity and is no longer an atheist.

     
  • At 9:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Good day Da Vinci! and welcome to IR.

    Designer is the thing which makes the front-loading, isn't it? Can this designer be something other than a God? Is ıt possible?

    Yes. Yes. And yes.

    The designer need not have anything to do with eternal salvation or any other religious connotation.

    In the Dover trial Behe said designer may be non-supernatural for example aliens can be designer but if so then aliens will need a designer, too.

    The supernatural has nothing to do with it as ALL scenarios "turtle down" to something either beyond nature OR the metaphysical "our universe 'just is'".

    What Behe is referring to is he is just talking about Earth;s biology.

    IOW he is restricting the design inference to that which can be observed- living organisms on this planet.

    And once you do that- restrict the inference- than aliens are perfectly acceptable.

    How did the aliens arise? Can't tell until we can observe them. And it isn't relevant to the matter at hand- that being Earth's biology.

    IMO designer (the guy who makes the front-loading thing) needs to be supernatural. And this supernatural thing is obviously God, isn't it?

    Look at it this way- natural processes only exist in nature. Therefore natural processes cannot account for the origins of nature.

    IOW, as I said above, even the atheistic scenario requires something beyond nature. Or they can say the universe "just is". But science tells us the universe, and therefore nature, had a beginning.

    However, no, the front-loading designer, even if beyond nature, need not be "God". That designer doews NOT have to be interested in your personal life. That designer need not care about "right" and "wrong".

    That designer need not have anything to do with eternal salvation.

    That designer could be like any other Earthly designer, with more capabilities.

    Thus an ateist, who accepts the existence of a designer, as a result accepts the existence of a deity and is no longer an atheist.

    The designer doesn't have to be a diety. The designer need not have any powers to interfere/ intervene in the design.

    Of course some, like you, will say that any entity beyond nature is "God". But then you are changing definitions to suit your needs.

     
  • At 10:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    All that said I cannot stop people (or a person) from deifying the designer.

    But that does not make the designer a deity.

    Also the designer need no longer exist whereas deities are immortal.

     
  • At 12:25 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Thanks Joe.

    I think there is misunderstanding. When I say "God", I don't mean god of Christians or Muslims. I mean generally God. The thing which is believed to have created the universe. I think every person who believe in a god, believes that that god has created the universe.

    According to ID, I think Designer is the designer of both the universe and life. Am I right?

    As long as I know ID says that life can't come to existence without intelligence. Thus aliens can't be the Designer. Because there must be one designer or not?

    You said: "Look at it this way- natural processes only exist in nature. Therefore natural processes cannot account for the origins of nature."

    The nature we know started 13.7 billion years ago. So life came to existence in the nature not somewhere out of nature. We don't know anything about before Big Bang. We know the things after Big Bang. And life occured in the nature. So existence of life occured in the nature. So why can not it be through natural processes?

    You said: "That designer could be like any other Earthly designer, with more capabilities."

    But a designer like that needs another its designer. And that designer will need its designer. And at last there must be something that doesn't need a designer. IMO this leads to a deity.

     
  • At 4:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I think there is misunderstanding. When I say "God", I don't mean god of Christians or Muslims. I mean generally God. The thing which is believed to have created the universe. I think every person who believe in a god, believes that that god has created the universe.

    I would say that first we have to have a concrete definition of "God" or "god".

    According to ID, I think Designer is the designer of both the universe and life. Am I right?

    No. There could be multiple designers. ID says nothing about this.

    ID is only concerned with the design. That is can we reliably detect design given no knowledge of the designer(s).

    And yes, it could be that there was/ is only one designer and that designer designed the universe and living organisms.

    (my stance is that "life" is a fundamental entity, as is matter, energy and information)

    As long as I know ID says that life can't come to existence without intelligence. Thus aliens can't be the Designer. Because there must be one designer or not?

    ID does not address the question(s) of the designer(s). And the diversity of living organisms on Earth could very well be via "alien" colonization.

    First things first. And first we need to make determinations about the biological diversity we can observe.

    You said: "Look at it this way- natural processes only exist in nature. Therefore natural processes cannot account for the origins of nature."

    The nature we know started 13.7 billion years ago.

    The time-line would depend on "how" it started.

    So life came to existence in the nature not somewhere out of nature. We don't know anything about before Big Bang. We know the things after Big Bang. And life occured in the nature. So existence of life occured in the nature. So why can not it be through natural processes?

    You missed the point. Nature itself cannot have arisen via natural processes as natural processes only exist in nature.

    Also both intelligence and design are natural.

    That is why super or non-natural is irrelevant.

    The point is what can intelligent agencies do compared to what blind/ mindless processes can do.

    You said: "That designer could be like any other Earthly designer, with more capabilities."

    But a designer like that needs another its designer.

    So what? ID doesn't address that.


    And that designer will need its designer.

    How do you know until you can observe and syudy those alleged designers?

    And at last there must be something that doesn't need a designer. IMO this leads to a deity.

    And the universe had a beginning- regardless of ID or not. IMHO that means every scenario requires something beyond nature to get things started.

    Therefore, by your logic, everything leads to a deity and atheism is mere bullshit denial of that reality.

    And just because you can deify something doesn't mean that everyone has to.

    One of the reasons I am no longer a christian is that I will no longer deify Jesus.

    For all ID cares everything in every religion could be absolutely false.

    see also:

    Who Designed the Designer?

     
  • At 4:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The nature we know started 13.7 billion years ago. So life came to existence in the nature not somewhere out of nature. We don't know anything about before Big Bang.

    There are only so many options to choose from. And it matters a great deal whether or not that which is being investigated is due to agency activity or blind/ mindless processes.

    If you are getting a free pass pre-universe then ID gets one.

    All we can do is look at what we have, compare agency activity to blind processes, and the design inference flows naturally from the data.

    All that said I cannot stop people (or a person) from deifying the designer.

    But that does not make the designer a deity.

    To deify or not to deify is one's personal choice.

    Also the designer(s) need no longer exist whereas deities are immortal.

     
  • At 5:47 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    You said: "You missed the point. Nature itself cannot have arisen via natural processes as natural processes only exist in nature."
    I didn't say that nature have arisen via nautral processes. What I sais was life have arisen in the nature so existence of life should be via natural processes.

    Known universe has a beginning. We don't know anything about before Big Bang. Things happening in the nature should be via natural processes.

    Do you think that things can be done via non-natural processes in the nature?

    You said: "The point is what can intelligent agencies do compared to what blind/ mindless processes can do."

    IMO the point is how can intelligent agencies do things? You assert that blind processes can't do certain things but intelligent agencies can do. But how? This is the key point. And without defining how, ID is baseless. How is the front-loading process occures? This needs defining.

    You said: "And the universe had a beginning- regardless of ID or not. IMHO that means every scenario requires something beyond nature to get things started.

    Therefore, by your logic, everything leads to a deity and atheism is mere bullshit denial of that reality."


    Origin of life does not need something beyond nature because life had arisen in nature. It is the product of nature. Life has nothing to do with beyond nature.

    And the origin of universe is beyond nature nut this doesn't mean that it leads to a deity. We know nothing about it. There is no clue about before the Big Bang. We don't need a deity here. And atheism is "not accepting that there is a deity".

     
  • At 8:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I didn't say that nature have arisen via nautral processes.

    But that is the point- how nature arose in the first place.

    What I sais was life have arisen in the nature so existence of life should be via natural processes.

    And design is a natural process- that is design proicesses exist in nature.

    There isn't anything supernatural about the designing of my cars or computers.

    Known universe has a beginning. We don't know anything about before Big Bang.

    That which has a beginning requires a cause does it not?

    IMO the point is how can intelligent agencies do things?

    However they want to as long as it is within the realm of their capabilities.

    You assert that blind processes can't do certain things but intelligent agencies can do. But how?

    By design. Ya see we have direct observation of designing agencies designing and building automobiles.

    We have never observed nature, operating freely, do so.

    This is the key point. And without defining how, ID is baseless. How is the front-loading process occures? This needs defining.

    That is false. I say that because the ONLY possible way to determine anything about the designer or the specific design processes used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

    ID is about the detection and understanding of (the) design. Period.

    The designer and the specific process(es) are separate questions.

    Can evolutionists tell us what mutations are responsible for the anatomical and physiological differences observed between chimps and humans? No.

    So don't ask of ID what the reigning paradigm can't provide.

    You said: "And the universe had a beginning- regardless of ID or not. IMHO that means every scenario requires something beyond nature to get things started.

    Therefore, by your logic, everything leads to a deity and atheism is mere bullshit denial of that reality."


    Origin of life does not need something beyond nature because life had arisen in nature. It is the product of nature. Life has nothing to do with beyond nature.

    I didn't say anything about the origin of life. And both design and intelligence are natural, ie they both exist in nature.

    And the origin of universe is beyond nature nut this doesn't mean that it leads to a deity.

    That's what I have been saying.

    You are the one saying that if it is beyond nature it is a deity.

    But anyways, deifying the entity (the designer) is a personal choice. And that is why it is OK to be both an atheist and an IDist.

     
  • At 11:43 AM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Joe said: "But that is the point- how nature arose in the first place."

    As a result of Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago.

    Joe said: "And design is a natural process- that is design proicesses exist in nature."

    But before you said that nature is designed. So the designer of nature should be beyond nature.

    And think of first life in nature. You asserted that life must have been designed.

    1. So the designer of life should be something in the nature, isn't it?

    2. And it is an intelligent thing in nature. Where did it come from? From outside of nature? or was it in nature from the beginning of nature?

    3. Is it something spiritual or material?

    4. How does front-loading work? For example did the designer produced the first cell and put every information needed for other species and information about how evolution will work so that the other species could evolve without any further intervention?

     
  • At 12:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe said: "But that is the point- how nature arose in the first place."

    As a result of Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago.

    What caused it? And where did the laws that now govern our universe come from?

    Joe said: "And design is a natural process- that is design proicesses exist in nature."

    But before you said that nature is designed. So the designer of nature should be beyond nature.

    All causes of nature would be beyond nature.

    And think of first life in nature. You asserted that life must have been designed.

    Living organisms have all the characteristics of being designed. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

    1. So the designer of life should be something in the nature, isn't it?

    Could be. I don't know. ID doesn't care.

    2. And it is an intelligent thing in nature. Where did it come from? From outside of nature? or was it in nature from the beginning of nature?

    Again we can't answer those questions until we can observe and study the thing in question.

    You do know how science is conducted, right?

    4. How does front-loading work? For example did the designer produced the first cell and put every information needed for other species and information about how evolution will work so that the other species could evolve without any further intervention?

    Now we are not on-topic.

    Front-loading could work like "Evolving Inventions" SciAm Feb 2003. You have a starting point and you know what you want or need. You then design a program to achieve those goals. You would also need to design the necessary resources.

    In the end that designer/ front loader need not be a deity. However I cannot stop anyone from deifying that designer.

    It is a personal choice. Which means someone can also choose not to deify that designer. Meaning one can be an atheist and IDist without any contradictions.

     
  • At 7:49 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Joe said: "What caused it? And where did the laws that now govern our universe come from?"

    The cause is beyond nature. We do not know anything about it. It is a question about beyond the nature. But this doesn't mean that there is a deity which is the cause of universe. This is totally unknown.

    The laws of nature occured after Big Bang. So these laws are our universe's laws. They are only valid in this universe.

    IMHO the designer of life should be something spiritual, it can't be something material. What do you think about this? Is it possible to have a "designer of first life in nature" which is not spiritual?

     
  • At 10:05 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What caused it? And where did the laws that now govern our universe come from?"

    The cause is beyond nature.

    That's what I already stated. However that alone does not give you a free-pass on an explanation.

    We do not know anything about it.

    That doesn't mean we can't try to figure it out. There are only so many options to choose from.

    It is a question about beyond the nature.

    It is a question that requires an answer. It requires an answer because reality demonstrates it matters a great deal how something came to be when trying to figure it out.

    But this doesn't mean that there is a deity which is the cause of universe. This is totally unknown.

    That is what I have been saying!!!! No deity is required. That is why is is perfectly acceptable to be an atheist and an IDist.


    The laws of nature occured after Big Bang. So these laws are our universe's laws. They are only valid in this universe.

    Really? We know when the laws came into existence?

    But I digress- those laws still need an explanation pertaining to their origins.

    IMHO the designer of life should be something spiritual, it can't be something material.

    I don't hold that opinion.

    Is it possible to have a "designer of first life in nature" which is not spiritual?

    Yes.

     
  • At 3:43 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    I said: IMHO the designer of life should be something spiritual, it can't be something material.

    You said: I don't hold that opinion.

    I said: Is it possible to have a "designer of first life in nature" which is not spiritual?

    You said: Yes.

    I think this is the place where we don't agree. It is not possible to have a intelligent non-spriritual designer which designs life and makes front-loading thing. Because this thing has to be alive. It must be a living thing. So it can't be the designer of "first life" in nature.

     
  • At 5:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    da vinci,

    Yesterday YOU said that we do not know anything about it (that being what was before the universe).

    Now you are saying something different.

    Please make up your mind.

    Earlier I stated that "life" may be a fundamental entity.

    That means that life can exist without a physical form, just as the radio waves that fill our air-space exist without a physical form.

    On the other hand we don't know what existed before nature and therefore we cannot exclude the first designer as having a physical/ material form.

     
  • At 4:46 AM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Joe,

    Electromagnetic waves occur as a result of physicals processes. They don't come out of nothing. They need a cause.

    This means your wave form alive designer needs a cause, its designer.

    And I didn't say anything different. We don't know anything about what happened or what was around before Big Bang.

     
  • At 10:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And I didn't say anything different. We don't know anything about what happened or what was around before Big Bang.

    If we don't know then you can't say the designer was spiritual or material.

    Just say "we don't know".

    Electromagnetic waves occur as a result of physicals processes. They don't come out of nothing. They need a cause.

    If that is true then so does the big bang- that is the origins of nature also needs a cause.

    You don't get something from nothing.

    My point about RF is that it is not material, yet it exists.

    This means your wave form alive designer needs a cause, its designer.

    Really? So pulsars that send out the EM pulses we observe needed a designer?

    Interesting.

    That background radiation we observe also must have required a designer.

    Hey we might be getting somewhere.

    The universe exists, had a beginning and therefore required a cause.

    Intelligent Design says that the cause was itself intelligent. That cause "knew" what was needed and designed this universe accordingly.

     
  • At 10:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Who designed the designer(s) of Stonehenge?

    Does it matter who designed it to any investigation that is trying to figure out-

    A) What's there?

    B) What is its function?

    C) How did it come to be this way?

    Ya see in the absence of direct observation or designer input the only way to make any determination about the designer is to study the design in question.

    IOW we don't have to know who designed what to detect design and study it.

     
  • At 11:49 AM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Joe said: "If we don't know then you can't say the designer was spiritual or material."

    I was talking about the designer of life. That designer should be spiritual. Because life has arisen in nature, so the occurance of life is a result of natural processes. And if the designer is material and a part of nature, it must be alive. This means that it is not the designer of first life because it is alive.

    Joe said: "My point about RF is that it is not material, yet it exists."
    But RF is not intelligent and does not design anything.

    Joe said: "That background radiation we observe also must have required a designer."
    Why?

    Joe said: "Intelligent Design says that the cause was itself intelligent. That cause "knew" what was needed and designed this universe accordingly."
    Did it only do the design process once, before Big Bang or did it make another design for life?

    I mean did it do anything in the universe or only before the universe came out? If you are talking about something which is intervening or can intervene to nature, it is not acceptable for an atheist.

     
  • At 3:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I was talking about the designer of life. That designer should be spiritual.

    Perhaps I don't know what you mean by "spiritual".

    Also by "life" are you talking about living organisms on Earth?

    I ask because as I have said a couple times now that "life" would be a fundamental entity.

    And a "living organism" would be the combination of all four- matter, energy, information and life.

    When organisms die only matter, energy and information remain.

    Because life has arisen in nature, so the occurance of life is a result of natural processes. And if the designer is material and a part of nature, it must be alive. This means that it is not the designer of first life because it is alive.

    You're talking philosophy now. All ID cares about is what we can observe, test and measure- just like science.

    And again both design and intelligence are natural. The debate is what nature, operating freely, can do vs. what agencies are capable of.

    We know that nature, operating freely, cannot account for the origins of nature.

    Joe said: "Intelligent Design says that the cause was itself intelligent. That cause "knew" what was needed and designed this universe accordingly."

    Did it only do the design process once, before Big Bang or did it make another design for life?

    We don't know and it is irrelevant to ID. However via scientific inquiry we may figure that out.

    I mean did it do anything in the universe or only before the universe came out?

    Don't know.

    If you are talking about something which is intervening or can intervene to nature, it is not acceptable for an atheist.

    Now you are changing the definition of "atheist". Just as predicted- thanks.

    WE can change nature. WE intervene on a daily basis. WE do things which nature, operating freely, cannot or would not do.

    WE are NOT deities.

    And as you said:

    But this doesn't mean that there is a deity which is the cause of universe. This is totally unknown.

    That is what I have been saying!!!! No deity is required. That is why is is perfectly acceptable to be an atheist and an IDist.

     
  • At 7:14 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    IMHO an intelligent non-material (non-physical) designer has to be supernatural, a deity. So I don't think that the idea of designer is not compatible with atheism. It is fully compatible with deism but not with atheism IMHO.

     
  • At 9:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    IMHO an intelligent non-material (non-physical) designer has to be supernatural, a deity.

    In reality not everything that is beyond nature has to supernatural and not everything supernatural has to be a deity.

    As opposed to your opinion I will go with the accepted definitions.

    So I don't think that the idea of designer is not compatible with atheism.

    You're welcome to your opinion but that is all it is.

    Just because YOU (or anyone else) CHOOSES to deify the designer does not mean the designer is a deity.

    One can just as easily choose not to deify the designer and therefore remain an atheist and an IDist.

     
  • At 7:57 AM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Joe said: "Just because YOU (or anyone else) CHOOSES to deify the designer does not mean the designer is a deity."

    IMHO it is not possible not to deify a designer which is capable of doing things that you have suggested. So I think that ID is not compatible with atheism.

     
  • At 11:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    IMHO it is not possible not to deify a designer which is capable of doing things that you have suggested.

    I know it is possible to not deify something if one so chooses to do so.

    A) We do not know that the designer is supernatural.

    As YOU said we don't know anything about what was before the big-bang.

    deity (plural deities)

    1.(religion) The essential nature of a god, divinity.
    2.(religion) A powerful entity that possesses numerous miraculous powers (e.g. a god or goddess).

    and

    B) We cannot tell from the data if said designer is divine or if said designer possesses numerous miraculous powers.


    So once again I will go with the standard and widely accepted definitions of "deity", "atheist" and "atheism", which demonstrate it is possible to be an atheist and an IDist.

    If you want to argue the point then it is up to you to provide the standard definitions to support your claim.

    Nobody cares about an opinion. People do care about the facts.

     
  • At 12:28 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    I think we will not be able to agree on this topic. IMHO the designer you are talking about should be supernatural, it can't be something natural. Because the thing which has done front-loading has to be supernatural. Front-loading process can't take place naturally. It needs a supernatural cause.

    Do you think that front-loading is a natural process and it doesn't require any supernatural intervention of the designer? If you say yes then how? How is it natural?

     
  • At 1:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1) Intelligent Design doesn't say anything about the designer.

    2) Just because something is beyond nature that doesn't mean it is supernatural.

    3) Just because something is supernatural that doesn't mean it is a deity.

    (and if it isn't a deity then an atheist can be an IDist)

    4) Even YOUR scenario requires a cause that is outside of nature.

    5) By YOUR logic that cause is supernatural.

    6) All atheists should now self-implode or be caught in an endless loop of circular reasoning.

    To sum it up:

    1) The designer, even if beyond nature, doesn't have to be supernatural or a deity.

    2. Even the anti-ID atheist position requires something beyond nature as a cause. And just saying "we can't say anything about it" does not release you from the responsibility og having to explain it. IOW you cannot hold ID and IDists to a different standard.

     
  • At 1:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Do you think that front-loading is a natural process and it doesn't require any supernatural intervention of the designer?

    Yes. Front-loading doesn't require any intervention. That's why it's called "front-loading".

    Look at computer programs. They aren't programs until the programmer finished designing them and then compiling them.

    By looking at the finished computer code or the output program one cannot tell what events led up to that code.

    If you say yes then how?

    By design. We don't need to know anything more about the process in order to detect and study the design in question.

    How is it natural?

    Once the universe is started anything that occurs in it is natural.

     
  • At 9:24 AM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Joe said: "3) Just because something is supernatural that doesn't mean it is a deity.

    (and if it isn't a deity then an atheist can be an IDist)"


    That's wrong. A supernatural thing in nature is not acceptable for an atheist.

    IMHO it is crystal clear. You want to see it from a different point of view but I think it is totally wrong. A designer doing the things you told can't be a natural thing. I will not discuss it anymore because it is clear that we will not agree.

    You say nothing about what is front-loading or how it happens or how the designer makes front-loading...

     
  • At 10:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    That's wrong. A supernatural thing in nature is not acceptable for an atheist.

    You are redefining "atheist" and "atheism".

    This I predicted in the OP:

    Of course evolutionists can & will re-define atheism and ID so that there would be a conflict, but that is another story...

    You say nothing about what is front-loading or how it happens or how the designer makes front-loading...

    Those are all irrelevant to ID.

    The designer(s) does not have to be supernatural. That which is beyond nature does not have to be supernatural.

    I challenge you to find 3 standard/ accepted definitions of "atheist" of "atheism" that states atheists cannot allow the supernatural or anything beyond nature.

    So far you have failed to produce one definition that supports your claims. And I have provided the definitions that support mine. Go figure...


    atheist:

    unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities (encarta)

    atheist
    someone who believes that God or gods do not exist (cambridge)

    Merriam-Webster's definition was provided in the OP.

    atheist
    A person who does not believe that deities exist. (wiktionary)

    Reality demonstrates that my premise is correect and YOU are redefining "atheist" to suit your needs.

    IOW you lose...

     
  • At 10:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thank you for helping me make my point.

     
  • At 12:23 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Hi Joe,

    First of all "supernatural" and "beyond nature" are different things. There may be things out of universe. They are beyond nature. But supernatural is something in the natural but can do things beyond the laws of nature. An atheist doesn't believe that something supernatural can/does exist. You can look at any dictionary you want. I don't care what they say. Something supernatural is not acceptable for atheism.

    You can ask any atheist about this. Ask them if they accept that something supernatural can/does exist.

    You want to limit atheism to not believing in god. It is totally absurd.

     
  • At 1:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    First of all "supernatural" and "beyond nature" are different things.

    I know that. That is why I said:

    2) Just because something is beyond nature that doesn't mean it is supernatural.

    IOW the designer need not be "supernatural".

    You can look at any dictionary you want. I don't care what they say.

    I don't care what you say. In my OP I stated that the only way around my point is to redefine atheism and ID.

    Thanks for fulfilling my prediction.

    You can ask any atheist about this. Ask them if they accept that something supernatural can/does exist.

    Atheists can say whatever they want- they're atheists. Lying does not matter to them.

    And if an atheist tells me that atheism rejects the "supernatural" I will ask that person for the evidence to support that claim.

    If all that person has is his/ her "say-so" then I can reject their claim on the grounds it is baseless.


    You want to limit atheism to not believing in god.

    That's what the standard and accepted definitions say- but they say "deity".

     
  • At 1:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I challenge you to find 3 standard/ accepted definitions of "atheist" of "atheism" that states atheists cannot allow the supernatural or anything beyond nature.

    So far you have failed to produce one definition that supports your claims. And I have provided the definitions that support mine. Go figure...

     
  • At 6:24 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Wikipedia atheism article:
    "With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may counter anything from the existence of a god, to the existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts, such as those of Hinduism and Buddhism. (Britannica (1992). "Atheism as rejection of religious beliefs". Encyclopædia Britannica 1: 666. 0852294735. Retrieved on 2006-10-27.)"

    About.com on agnosticism/atheism:
    "Most atheists are materialists and naturalists, which means that they only accept the existence of a natural world made up of matter and energy. This means not believing in the existence of supernatural beings or anything not produced by matter and energy."


    If your designer is something natural than it is compatible with atheism. However the designer you are talking about is not natural in my opinion. I don't want to longer this discussion. I made my position clear. I don't want to read and write the same things over and over.

    See you Joe.

     
  • At 9:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may counter anything from the existence of a god, to the existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts, such as those of Hinduism and Buddhism.

    Umm note the words "may counter anything".

    "Most atheists are materialists and naturalists, which means that they only accept the existence of a natural world made up of matter and energy. This means not believing in the existence of supernatural beings or anything not produced by matter and energy."

    Note the words "Most atheists". Meaning not all atheists have to have that notion.

    ID doesn't say anything about religion nor religious beliefs.

    However the designer you are talking about is not natural in my opinion.

    I don't care about your opinion. To some people technology is supernatural.

    I made my position clear.

    I made my position clear also.

    A designer, even one beyond nature, need not be supernatural. Even you admit to that.

    IOW it is perfectly OK to accept ID, ie be an IDist and still be an atheist.

    BTW I talked with 4 atheists after you said to ask them. They agreed with me. Go figure...

     
  • At 7:31 AM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Joe: "A designer, even one beyond nature, need not be supernatural. Even you admit to that."

    That's wrong. You are misrepresenting my words. Look what I said: "IMHO the designer you are talking about should be supernatural, it can't be something natural. Because the thing which has done front-loading has to be supernatural. Front-loading process can't take place naturally. It needs a supernatural cause."

    Bye...

     
  • At 10:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1) Intelligent Design doesn't say anything about the designer.

    Nothing, nada, zilch. And there isn't anything you can do or say to change that fact.

    2) The best infinite regress can do is to say "something beyond this universe was responsible for the universe."

    That holds true even in the anti-ID materialistic scenario.

    3) That which is beyond this universe does not have to be supernatural.


    You can't have it both ways. IOW you can't say that the materialistic anti-ID position doesn't require the supernatural but the ID position does, when they both regress to the same point- something beyond the universe.

    IOW if ID is in conflict with atheism so is any position that also regresses to something beyond nature.

    Also when you say:

    "IMHO the designer you are talking about should be supernatural, it can't be something natural."

    and also say:

    First of all "supernatural" and "beyond nature" are different things.

    You peg the bullshit meter.

     
  • At 4:03 AM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    The thing you don't get is this: The process of front-loading needs a supernatural cause.

     
  • At 8:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL!!! By that "logic" the origin of nature requires a supernatural cause.

    You can't have it both ways. IOW you can't say that the materialistic anti-ID position doesn't require the supernatural but the ID position does, when they both regress to the same point- something beyond the universe.

    Good luck with that...

     
  • At 10:53 AM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Hello Joe,

    It is me again.

    If you don't mind, I have some questions for you.

    1. Do you think it is possible for any information --or CSI-- existing before big bang --if there is any-- to be conserved during the big bang and be used in our universe? If your answer is yes, what is your evidence for this?

    2. According to intelligent design hypothesis does an intelligent designer have to be complex enough not come to existence without intelligent design? Or can it be something that doesn't have to be intelligently design?

     
  • At 12:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hello da vinci,

    In reverse order:

    2. According to intelligent design hypothesis does an intelligent designer have to be complex enough not come to existence without intelligent design? Or can it be something that doesn't have to be intelligently design?

    Intelligent Design does not say anything about the designer.

    1. Do you think it is possible for any information --or CSI-- existing before big bang --if there is any-- to be conserved during the big bang and be used in our universe? If your answer is yes, what is your evidence for this?

    Yes:

    "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind." Max Planck


    Now how about you addressing the following:

    You can't have it both ways. IOW you can't say that the materialistic anti-ID position doesn't require the supernatural but the ID position does, when they both regress to the same point- something beyond the universe.

     
  • At 4:49 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Joe: "Intelligent Design does not say anything about the designer."

    I am not asking who or what is the designer. Read my question carefully.

    According to ID hypothesis, complex enough things CAN NOT come to existence without the designing process of an intelligent designer. Intelligent designer is a MUST for novel complex enough things to come to existence. Do you agree with this? I will go on after your answer.

    Da Vinci: "1. Do you think it is possible for any information --or CSI-- existing before big bang --if there is any-- to be conserved during the big bang and be used in our universe? If your answer is yes, what is your evidence for this?"

    Joe: "Yes:

    'All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.' Max Planck"


    This is not even near to be an answer to my question.

    Joe: "Now how about you addressing the following:

    You can't have it both ways. IOW you can't say that the materialistic anti-ID position doesn't require the supernatural but the ID position does, when they both regress to the same point- something beyond the universe."


    We don't know anything about what happened before big bang. Time, as we comprehend, started with big bang. Nothing before it has any effect on our universe. If you assert the opposite you need to show evidence. Big bang process would destroy any input information. Our universe doesn't contain any information about before big bang. Materialistic doesn't require anything about before but ID position requires many things and processes.

     
  • At 8:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe: "Intelligent Design does not say anything about the designer."

    I am not asking who or what is the designer. Read my question carefully.

    I did read it carefully- YOU asked about the designer:

    2. According to intelligent design hypothesis does an intelligent designer have to be complex enough not come to existence without intelligent design? Or can it be something that doesn't have to be intelligently design?

    There it is in bold.

    You can't even follow your own questions!

    According to ID hypothesis, complex enough things CAN NOT come to existence without the designing process of an intelligent designer.

    That's false.

    I suggest you go and read some of Dembski's books.

    Intelligent designer is a MUST for novel complex enough things to come to existence. Do you agree with this?

    I disagree.

    You can't have it both ways. IOW you can't say that the materialistic anti-ID position doesn't require the supernatural but the ID position does, when they both regress to the same point- something beyond the universe."

    We don't know anything about what happened before big bang.

    Then there is no reason to reject ID.

    Ya see that which exists requires a cause.

    Materialistic doesn't require anything about before but ID position requires many things and processes.

    Pure nonsensical bullshit.

    Thanks for admitting your position is based on intellectual cowardice.

     
  • At 1:16 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Joe, you started to be really really funny.

    Joe: "You can't even follow your own questions!"

    IMO you don't understand or want to understand what I am talking about. I am talking about complexity of something. And you say "no no it is about designer I can't talk about it because ID doesn't say anything about it". OK. It doesn't say anything about the designer but isn't ID all about complexity? My question is about complexity not the identity of designer.


    Da Vinci: "According to ID hypothesis, complex enough things CAN NOT come to existence without the designing process of an intelligent designer."

    Joe: "That's false. I suggest you go and read some of Dembski's books."

    This is what Dembski said: "As a theory of biological origins and development, intelligent design’s central claim is that only intelligent causes adequately explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable."

    What do you understand from "intelligent design’s central claim is that only intelligent causes adequately explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology"?

    Da Vinci: "Intelligent designer is a MUST for novel complex enough things to come to existence. Do you agree with this?"

    Joe: "I disagree."

    Dembski and all other IDists agree except you. That's great.

     
  • At 8:10 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "complex, information-rich structures of biology"

    COMPEX, INFORMATION-RICH

    IOW it is more than merely complex.

    What part of that don't you understand?

     
  • At 12:03 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    "Intelligent designer is a MUST for novel complex enough things to come to existence. Do you agree with this?"

    What do you think I ment with "novel complex enough things"?

    I didn't directly but I was talking about CSI.

    OK. Lets change my question to this: "Intelligent designer is a MUST for CSI to come to existence."

    Do you agree with this?

     
  • At 9:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    da vinci:
    OK. Lets change my question to this: "Intelligent designer is a MUST for CSI to come to existence."

    Do you agree with this?


    Yes I do.

     
  • At 3:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    From The Great Debate:

    Dr. Bradley Monton

    Dr. Monton will speak from the Pro-ID Atheist Position – There is some legitimate scientific evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer of our universe, but this evidence probably isn’t enough to convert atheists to theism.

     
  • At 12:27 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Hello again Joe,

    Da Vinci: "OK. Lets change my question to this: 'Intelligent designer is a MUST for CSI to come to existence.'

    Do you agree with this?"


    Joe: "Yes I do."

    Next question: Is it possible to have a designer which doesn't need any CSI to come to existence? IOW, can an intelligent designer come to existence without the need of any CSI?

     
  • At 4:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Next question: Is it possible to have a designer which doesn't need any CSI to come to existence? IOW, can an intelligent designer come to existence without the need of any CSI?

    I wouldn't think so, so I will just say "No".

    But then again there is always the eternally exitent designer.

    Do you have a point?

     
  • At 4:59 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Da Vinci: "Next question: Is it possible to have a designer which doesn't need any CSI to come to existence? IOW, can an intelligent designer come to existence without the need of any CSI?"

    Joe: "I wouldn't think so, so I will just say "No".

    But then again there is always the eternally exitent designer.

    Do you have a point?"


    Next question: What can this "eternally exitent designer" be besides a deity? Shouldn't it be a god? In this condition, how can ID be compatible with atheism?

     
  • At 7:55 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What can this "eternally exitent designer" be besides a deity?Why does it have to be a deity?

    The designer doesn't have to be supernatural.

    The designer doesn't have to be worshipped.

    Next question:

    Do atheists think that something comes from nothing?

     
  • At 12:16 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Da Vinci: "What can this 'eternally existent designer' be besides a deity?"Joe: "Why does it have to be a deity?"An eternally existent intelligent being should be a deity? How else can an intelligent being can be eternal? An intelligent enternal being can only be a deity.

    Joe: "The designer doesn't have to be supernatural."How can an eternally existent intelligent being not be supernatural? A natural intelligent being should come to existent. It can't be eternal. It can't be beginningless. Its existence must have a beginning, which means it can't be eternal.

    Joe: "The designer doesn't have to be worshipped."I don't remember saying anything about being worshipped. I haven't seen any deistic gods who wants to be worshipped :))

    Joe: "Do atheists think that something comes from nothing?"I don't think that anything can come from nothing. And I don't believe that absolute nothingness is possible. There was always something and there will always be something.

     
  • At 12:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    An eternally existent intelligent being should be a deity? How else can an intelligent being can be eternal? An intelligent enternal being can only be a deity.That's it?

    Argument via forceful assertion is not an argument.

    How can an eternally existent intelligent being not be supernatural?By not having super-natural powers.

    Ya see BEFORE there was nature the designer would only be PRE-natural.

    There was always something and there will always be something.Oh but that "something" can be eternal and not a deity.

    Twisted pretzel logic there da vinci...

     
  • At 3:43 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    OK, Joe. You don't want to call your "eternally existent intelligent designer" god, deity etc. But this doesn't change the fact that, this is the very thing that atheists do not believe in. Atheists do not believe in the existence of an eternal, intelligent being. As long as you accepted that according to ID there must be an etenally existent intelligent designer, there is no need to continue to discuss whether ID is compatible with atheism.

     
  • At 5:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As long as you redefine things to suit your needs there isn't anything to discuss.

    Something doesn't come from nothing- you admit that.

    You then say there is this this eternal "something".

    Then THAT is what "atheists" believe in, "atheism" is an oxymoron and no real atheist exists.

     
  • At 12:54 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    I am not redefining anything. You don't understand what "eternally existent intelligent being" means. Go ask any atheist, deist or theist. Your understanding of ID clearly leads to a deity as the prime designer. And by definition this is incompatible with atheism.

    Of course there must be something eternal. Because nothing can come from absolute nothingness. There was never a state of absolute nothingness. So there was always something and there will be always something. There is no oxymoron here. May be you don't understand or you don't want to understand what I am saying.

     
  • At 1:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ID does NOT require a belief in "God".

    The designer can be eternal and not be a deity.

    Just as your "something" can be eternal and not be a deity.


    BTW I have provided standard and accepted definitions of both "atheist" and "atheism".

    And nothing in those definitions support your claim.

    Why is that?

     
  • At 3:24 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    An eternal being must have lived infinitely many years. So your designer has lived infinitely many years.

    Assuming you would argue for the fine-tuning argument, your designer has the ability to design the blueprint of a universe and produce it.

    Your designer is eternal and intelligent and has the ability to produce universe and life. You may not want to call this thing deity or god but it clearly fits the definition of a deistic god.

     
  • At 5:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Umm there wasn't any time before the universe.

    Time started when the universe did.

    And yes designers usually know how to design the things they are designing- successful designers anyway.

    Also the designer or designers need not have anything to do with salvation.

    So your only option is to change the definition of a deity.

     
  • At 1:30 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Joe: "Umm there wasn't any time before the universe.

    Time started when the universe did."
    Are you sure? Then how did your intelligent designer designed our universe? If we accept big bang as the starting point of our universe, this only shows that our universe and our time has a beginning. This does not mean that there wasn't time before our universe. Big bang has nothing to do with the pre big bang era.

    Joe: "And yes designers usually know how to design the things they are designing- successful designers anyway."Designing a universe must a great thing. Your designer must be a genius. And since she is eternally existent, she must be something like a god. Think about it. Eternally existent :))

    Joe: "Also the designer or designers need not have anything to do with salvation."I don't remember saying anything about salvation or worshiping. I don't undertand why you are regularly mentioning these things? I'm talking about a deistic god. I'm aware that it is amusing for a theist to argue for a type of designer which you suggest.

    Joe: "So your only option is to change the definition of a deity."Absolutely not. A deistic god clearly fits into your understanding of ID. It supports the deistic point of view. It is not compatible with atheism.

     
  • At 4:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ID does NOT require "God".

    ID does NOT require a deity.

    I don't know what else to tell you.

    You have changed the definition of deity to suit your needs.

    If you doubt that ten please provide a standard definition of deity which supports your claim.

    And if my eternally existent designer is a deity than so is your eternally existent "something".

    Why do YOU keep avoiding that issue?

    And the bottom-line is being technologically advanced does not make the designer a deity.

     
  • At 10:21 AM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    OK, Joe. Let's not call your designer god. Let us call it X.

    My argument is this. If you talk to any atheist and tell them your about your eternally existent designer and call it X, atheists would not believe in the existence of X as they don't believe in the existence of god.

    For example, you can ask Bradley Monton (atheist philosopher you mentioned as a proof of your claim that atheism and ID are compatible) what he thinks about the concept of a designer which is eternally existent.

     
  • At 10:24 AM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Eternally existent something can be energy. Intelligence can not be eternal. It can come to existence after a series of processes. If there is something which possesses intelligence and if that thing is eternally existent, than that thing can only be god. Only a deity can be both eternally existent and intelligent.

     
  • At 10:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I have talked with atheists and they do not share your opinion.

    That is because they are smart enough to undertsand that technological advance does NOT make one a "God".

    Then you say that energy can be eternal but intelligence cannot.

    You are full of shit.

    Then you say that only a deity can be both eternally existent and intelligent-

    Again you are full of shit.

    The designer need not have any supernatural powers.

    And there isn't any evidence that shows intelligence can arise from energy, matter and chance.

    So once again you prove that "atheism" does not really exist because atheists believe some pretty peculiar things.

     
  • At 11:21 AM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Joe: "I have talked with atheists and they do not share your opinion."Than they are not atheists. They may be anti-theists (or maybe agnostics) but not atheists.

    Intelligence can not be eternal because it is not a fundamental part of the existence but energy is. Intelligence can only come to existence as a result of natural processes. Therefore, the existence of an eternal intelligent being can not be natural. It is a supernatural thing. Naturally it is not possible. It you argue for this, than you are arguing for something supernatural.

     
  • At 9:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Nope they are ALL atheists.

    They are just much smarter than you.

    You have no idea whether or not intelligence can be eternal.

    You have no idea whether or not intelligence is a fundamental entity.

    Natural process only exist in nature and as such canNOT account for its origins.

    And no one can demonstrate that intelligence can only arise via nature, operating freely.

    It takes FAITH. A lot of FAITH.

    IOW your "atheism" requires more FAITH than Christianity.

    IOW as I said "atheism" doesn't exist- that is if we listen to your contorted reasoning.

     
  • At 10:54 AM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Joe: "Nope they are ALL atheists."Atheists believing in (or not finding it contradictory to their point of view) an eternally existent intelligent!!! Amusing.

    Joe: "You have no idea whether or not intelligence can be eternal.

    You have no idea whether or not intelligence is a fundamental entity."
    I know this type. They don't care much about the problem of existence. They don't think about it. Therefore it is natural for them not to have any idea about these things. And weirdly you are trying to show their views as standard atheist position.

    Joe: "Natural process only exist in nature and as such canNOT account for its origins."And what about your eternally existent designer? Since it is eternal, there is no need to account for its origin. Right?

    Joe: "And no one can demonstrate that intelligence can only arise via nature, operating freely.

    It takes FAITH. A lot of FAITH.

    IOW your "atheism" requires more FAITH than Christianity."
    I don't claim intelligence can "only" arise naturally (without the need of intentional acts of some conscious being).
    Intelligence in our universe arose. This is a fact. 13,6 billion years ago there wasn't living, conscious, intelligence beings in our universe. But now there are many. This shows that intelligence arose in our universe. Because of this fact, I argue that intelligence arises naturally within our universe.

    Your argument is the eternal existence of intelligence which requires a great deal of faith. Where is your evidence for this argument? I would be glad to see your evidence for the eternal existence of intelligence.

     
  • At 11:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I have provided an ACCEPTED definition of "atheism" and "atheist".

    I cannot find one definition of atheism nor atheist which supports YOUR claim.

    Not one.

    A technologically advanced entity does not make it a deity.

    That you refuse to understand that pretty much exposes your agenda.

    Now you conflate the definitions of "natural".

    My car is natural in that it exists in nature. But it is unnatural because nature, operating freely cannot account for it.

    The question is did the intelligence in our universe arise via nature, operating freely?

    IOW can it be reduced to matter, energy and chance?

    There isn't any evidence for that and it takes quite a bit of faith to believe it.

    Then there is the fact that natural processes cannot account for the origins of nature because they only exist in nature.

    How do you define "living"?

    IOW how do you know there wasn't any living, conscious, intelligent beings in our universe when it began?

    So how about those accepted definitions that support your claim?

    Or are all technologically advanced beings also deities? (LoL)

     
  • At 1:24 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Joe: "I have provided an ACCEPTED definition of "atheism" and "atheist".

    I cannot find one definition of atheism nor atheist which supports YOUR claim.

    Not one.

    A technologically advanced entity does not make it a deity."


    Being eternally existent doesn't have anything to do with technological advancement. It is something else. No technology can make something exist eternally. It is not about technology. It is about existence. My argument is this. An eternally existent intelligent being should be considered as a god. There is not a standard type of god. There can be many different types of gods. Being eternal and intelligent are among the most important characteristics of a god. And your eternally existent intelligent designer is a god in my point of view. Not being able to do magical tricks like others doesn't disqualify it from being called god.

    Joe: "IOW how do you know there wasn't any living, conscious, intelligent beings in our universe when it began?"

    Do you know there was living things in our universe 13.6 billion years ago, a few micro second after big bang? If you claim such a weird thing, I think you should demonstrate some kind of evidence. I think it is an extremely safe assumption to consider occurrence of life in our universe many billion years after the big bang. If you think the opposite, you should demonstrate evidence refuting this view.

    Joe: "Or are all technologically advanced beings also deities? (LoL)"

    Amusing! I wonder whether you really don't understand or you pretend not to understand the point of view I am trying to explain.

     
  • At 9:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Geez the TECHNOLOGY part comes with designing the universe and making it so.

    And a technologically advanced being or beings should not be confused with a deity.

    Technological advancement does not require the supernatural.

    Also I made a BIG mistake for which I must apologize-

    The designer/ designers need no longer exist.

     
  • At 12:24 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    It is amusing to see you still talking about technological advancement. How many times do I have to explain the irrelevance of technology in the matter of being eternally existent?

    If you were arguing for the intelligent design of our universe, that was OK. It would be absolutely compatible with atheism. But your understanding of ID leads to an eternally existent designer which implicitly leads to the existence of a god-like entity or a type of god. Therefore your understanding of ID is clearly incompatible with atheism.

     
  • At 12:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What is amusing is that you don't seem to understand anything I have said.

    If an intelligent being or being which did not require a beginning is a deity than energy which didn't have a beginning is also deity as they have the SAME qualities- the ability to produce our universe an the intelligent beings it contains.

    My understanding is fully compatible with atheism as my understanding does NOT require a deity- no supernatural powers required.

    And just because YOU have some fucked-up definition of "deity" doesn't mean anything to me.

     
  • At 1:05 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Does energy have consciousness and intelligence? You are really amusing Joe. You simply don't get it. I am OK with it. Thanks for the discussion.

     
  • At 3:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Does a deity need technology?

    Yes you are amusing- who ever you are.

    YOU simply don't get it.

     
  • At 3:59 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Are you a joke?

    If you can show me how being technologically advanced can make something eternally existent, I will concede the point. Being techonologically advanced isn't enough for your designer. For lesser designers it may be enough but your eternally existent designer is the prime designer and technological advancement can not be accounted for its existence. It has nothing to do with technology. Technology can be used to explain the lesser designers but not the prime designer.

    You are dead wrong about this Joe. Stop repeating the "technology" nonsense. Get over it.

     
  • At 9:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I am waiting for YOPU to provide the definition of "deity" that says that an intelligent being without a beginning and that requires technology is a deity.

    YOU have FAILED to do so.

    IOW YOU are the joke.

    And that means that YOU are dead wrong on this.

     
  • At 12:22 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Energy can be eternal. Energy must be eternal because it exists and it can't be created out of nothing and it can't cease to exist. Therefore energy must be eternal. But intelligence is different. It can begin to exist and cease to exist. Intelligence is a complex entity and needs some information and organization to come to existence. It must have come to existence at some point. Naturally, it can not be eternally existent.

    An eternal intelligence can NOT be explained by natural means. It is unexplainable by natural means.

    THEREFORE, if there an eternally existent intelligent being it can not be natural which means your eternally existent designer must be supernatural.

     
  • At 1:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Energy isn't eternal just because YOU say so.

    And again "NATURAL" only exists in NATURE.

    And before the universe there wasn't any nature.

    Therefor your eternal energy cannot be explained naturally.

    And neither can the origin of thne universe.

    I am STILL WAITING for the definition of "deity" that supports your claim.

    That you have refused to produce one tells me you cannot.

     
  • At 1:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW it takes a huge leap of faith to say that energy can give rise to intelligence.

    IOW atheism doesn't exist.

     
  • At 4:39 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Joe: "Energy isn't eternal just because YOU say so."

    1. Can N units of energy be created out of absolutely nothing?
    2. Can N units of energy vanish absolutely?

    If you answer these questions, you can see why energy must be eternal. And I don't understand how you reject this idea. Your eternal designer do have energy and since it is eternal, energy must be eternal too. Right?

    Joe: "And again "NATURAL" only exists in NATURE.

    And before the universe there wasn't any nature.

    Therefor your eternal energy cannot be explained naturally.

    And neither can the origin of thne universe."


    Joe, suppose your are right (of course you are not). How about your eternally existent designer? Is it natural then?

    BTW, natural doesn't apply only for our universe. Something outside our universe may be beyond nature for us but when we look to the broader picture, we can call it natural in its own environment.


    Joe: "I am STILL WAITING for the definition of "deity" that supports your claim."

    Let me give you an example. If I say, "I found a watch on the street and I think it is eternal. Nobody made it. It just exists." what would be your answer?

    Your designer is a necessary being. An intelligent, conscious being which exists necessarily is by definition a god. Necessary existence is the key component of being god.

    Joe: "BTW it takes a huge leap of faith to say that energy can give rise to intelligence."

    Energy, matter, laws of nature, chance, coincidence, self-organization etc. can give rise to intelligence. Since at the point of big bang (assuming it is true) there was pure energy in the universe and now there is intelligence, we can conclude that intelligence arised in this universe naturally. Believing that intelligence needs outside poking by some unknowable magician, takes a much more huge leap of faith.

     
  • At 9:05 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You keep redefining words just to suit your needs.

    I will say it again:

    Please provide the accepted definition of "deity" which matches your claim.

    Failure to do so means you are full of shit.

    Also there isn't any evidence that would demonstrate that intelligence can arise from energy, matter, laws of nature- just where did they come from?-chance, self-org etc. None, nada, zero, zilch, nada.

    Also the ONLY "explanation" yoiu have for those laws of nature is "they just are (the way the are)." Hawking in "A Briefer History of Time"

    More faith.

    You also wroingly claim that nature can exist outside of our universe.

    Lol!!! Nature started the same time as the universe did.

    To say otherwise is beyond science and takes a leap of faith.

    You also don't appear to be able to follow along.

    I have stated that the designer does NOT need to exist anymore.

    Also the designer need not have supernatural powers- technology is the key.

    Also if your never-ending energy can produce the same thing as my designer then your eternal energy is also a deity as it can prduce the same stuff, which means it has the saqme powers.

    So your next post had better contain the accepted definition of "deity" that supports your claim or it will not get posted.

     
  • At 10:41 AM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Let's take a look at what William Lane Craig said in God? A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist:

    ----------------------------------
    The first argument gives us a Personal Creator of the universe who is uncaused, eternal, changeless (at least sans the universe), immaterial, and enormously powerful; the second gives us His inestimable intelligence and personal concern for intelligent creatures; the third, His absolute goodness and love as well as His metaphysical necessity; the fourth, His identity with the God of Israel revealed by Jesus of Nazareth; and the fifth, His knowability. Together the arguments do, if successful, give us a full-orbed conception of God. They give us the God of the Bible. It would be a strange form of atheism, indeed, which conceded that the God of the Bible exists! (p. 54)
    ----------------------------------

    Being uncaused, eternal and intelligence are the key attributes which the god of Christianity and your designer shares. Being enourmously powerful, changeless; having absolute goodness and love; being the god of Israel; having knowability are not key concepts of being deity. They are not indispensableness for being considered as deity.

    According to Craig's criteria your designer can be considered as a god.

    But wait a minute. I didn't give you a standard, accepted definition of god. So you can ignore everything I have written and repeat the same things again and again and again and again. Don't forget the technology part. I love it the most. It is just about technology, nothing more :))

     
  • At 11:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You are a joke.

    The quote isn't even in the relevant context.

    But anyway:

    1- The designer need not be a "Personal Creator"

    2- The designer could change- it could be no longer in existence.

    3- The designer need not be all powerful

    4- No personal concern

    5- Nothing about goodness nor love

    6- The designer need not be the "God" of the Bible

    And yes if a being requires technology then it is NOT a deity.

    Then again you are too stupid to understand that concept.

     
  • At 1:04 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Joe, I agree with all your 7 items. It seems that you didn't see but I have already mentioned this in my previous post. As I said being uncaused, eternal and intelligent are enough to be considered as deity. Other items are not indispensable for being considered as deity.

    Now, who is the stupid one, Joe?

     
  • At 7:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "As I said being uncaused, eternal and intelligent are enough to be considered as deity."


    But I don't care what YOU say.

    And THAT isn't what Craig said.

     
  • At 12:10 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Of course Craig didn't say that and I didn't say he said anything like that. His concern is Christian god. But mine isn't.

    Can you tell me which attributes besides being uncaused, eternal and intelligent are indispensable for being a deity?

     
  • At 3:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    A deity would not need technology because a deity would be all powerful.

    A deity wouldn't change because it would already be all powerful.

    A deity wouldn't lose power.

    A deity would continue to exist.

    Now compare that to a designer who needed technology because it wasn't all powerful and who also could no longer exist.

    A designer who didn't know the future.

    A designer without a revelation (just threw that in).

    And a designer who was more like a scientist/ technologist/ engineer than anything else.

     
  • At 3:28 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Joe: "A deity would not need technology because a deity would be all powerful.

    A deity wouldn't change because it would already be all powerful.

    A deity wouldn't lose power."


    Every deity must be all powerful says Joe. If you are not all powerful, then you are not a deity says Joe. What is your source, Joe?

    Joe: "A deity would continue to exist."

    A deity can't die or cease to exist or decide to end his own existence says Joe. What is your source, Joe?

    Joe: "A designer who didn't know the future."

    Must a deity know the future?

    Joe: "A designer without a revelation (just threw that in)."

    Do deistic gods reveal themselves?

    Joe: "And a designer who was more like a scientist/ technologist/ engineer than anything else."

    I have never seen any scientists who exists from eternity. Did you?

     
  • At 4:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    My source is Wm Lane Craig- the SAME source you sited.


    Now what is your source that says a deity would need technology to get something done?

     
  • At 4:45 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Joe: "My source is Wm Lane Craig- the SAME source you sited."

    Excuse my scepticism but I think you are making this up. Can you cite Craig to support your argument that if something is not all powerful then it is not a deity. Craig is talking about Christian god not about any deity. I don't care about the characteristics of Christian god. Being all powerful is not a necessity to be "a" deity. And Craig doesn't say anything as you claim. Being all powerful is a necessity for Christian god of course but not for being "a" deity.

     
  • At 4:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thank you- that means that NOTHING Craig said has ANY relevance in this discussion as he was talking about the Christian "God" and the Christian "God" ONLY!

     
  • At 5:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Now what is your source that says a deity would need technology to get something done?

     
  • At 4:20 AM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Joe: "Thank you- that means that NOTHING Craig said has ANY relevance in this discussion as he was talking about the Christian "God" and the Christian "God" ONLY!"

    That was amusing Joe. Thanks for the entertainment.

    Since Christian "God" is a deity, he must have the minimal characteric attributes of a deity. So some of the attritubes Craig mentions must be minimal for a deity. And I argue that being uncaused, eternal and intelligent are the minimal attributes. But you don't aggry and claim that "being all powerful" is also one of the minimal attributes. So you should support this claim. Your claim is that being all powerful is a absolutely necessary attribute to be considered deity. And you need to supoort this claim.

     
  • At 9:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There may be some minimal characteristics of a deity.

    I say uncaused and eternal are enough.

    And THAT means YOUR eternal energy qualifies.

    Also I asked YOU to provide a definition of deity which demonstrates a deity requires technology to accomplish something.

    Again you have FAILED to do so.

    So now in order for YOU to support YOUR claim YOU have to provide a definition of deity which states all it has to be is uncaused, eternal and intelligent.

    And btw if the designer no longer exists it was NOT eternal:

    "Having infinite duration"

    Or do you have to redefine every word in order to make your case?

     
  • At 12:56 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    I don't think "being intelligent" can be excluded from the minimal characteristics list.

    Look at this Joe: Wikipedia: Rejection or limitation of omnipotenceBeing all powerful seems to be rejected by even some monotheists. This means it is not a minimal characteristic or a absolutely necessary attribute of a deity.

     
  • At 1:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I think "intelligence" can be eliminated from the list given that uncaused and eternal energy can produce the SAME thing.

    Can "eternal" be eliminated?

    If it can then the designer pertaining to my ID is NOT a deity.

     
  • At 1:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I also wonder how many monotheists accept a deity that needs technology to accomplish something?

     
  • At 1:39 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Why are you wondering about monotheists or even theists? You should wonder about deists. As a sad before it would be amusing for a theist to argue for a type of designer which you suggest. But for a deist it would easily be acceptable.

     
  • At 4:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Da Vinci,

    Are you totally clue-less?

    Why am I wondering about monotheists?

    Because YOU posted:


    Being all powerful seems to be rejected by even some monotheists
    (bold added)-

    And also you keep posting shit by theists.

    I have noticed that you cannot provide a definition of a deity that requires technology to get something accomplished.

     
  • At 5:22 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Joe, did you care to click the link I have given? Stop this technology shit.

    I have provided you a source which shows that being all powerful is not a absolutely necessary requirment for being a deity. Since even some monotheist think their God is not all powerful, my argument seems to be approved and yours refuted. Your argument was that being all power is an absolute necessity for being a deity and you have provided no source or reference to back your claim.

     
  • At 7:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The technology issue is KEY because a deity would NOT require it.

    That YOU cannot understand that simple fact demonstrates you are incapable of discussing this topic.

    And yes I read what you linked. It does NOT help your case.

    Now you keep spewing shit about monotheists it is PERFECTLY REASONABLE to ask:

    I also wonder how many monotheists accept a deity that needs technology to accomplish something?

    You also keep ignoring what I post.

    Why is that?

     
  • At 4:00 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    I agree that your eternally existent designer doesn't have to be all powerful. If you can demostrate that being all powerful is not an absolutely necessary characteristic of being deity, I can accept with a clear consience that intelligent design (the type of ID you are proposing) does not necessarily contradict with atheism.

     
  • At 4:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The designer isn't eternally existent if it no longer exists.

    And the designer in my ID does not need to still exist.

    Also I am still waiting on something- anything that states that a deity requires technology to get the job done.

     
  • At 4:55 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Joe, needing technolgy is a result of not being all powerful. As I said millions of times if you can show that being all powerful is absolutely necessary, this means that ID doesn't necessarily contradict with atheism. Since I have demonstrated that being all powerful is rejected even by some monotheist, I think it is your responsibility to demonstrate that being all powerful is an absolutely necessary characteristic of a deity. The burden of proof is on your shoulders Joe. I would be more than happy to accept that ID and atheism are not necessarily inconsistent if you can demonstrate it.

     
  • At 5:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Deities do NOT need technology to accomplish something.

    If an entity needs technology it is not a deity.

    And again you don't have any monotheists saying that a deity needs technology.

    So stop referencing them as they don't support your position.

    And why are you ignoring the fact the designer need not exist anymore?

    Is it because that alone refutes your nonsense?

     
  • At 5:14 PM, Blogger Da Vinci said…

    Joe, you are complete joke. I am out. It is clear that you have serious comprehension problems. I bored with your childish attitude. I was wondering why people stop arguing with you and leave you alone. Now I understand why.

     
  • At 5:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I'm a complete joke because you run around with your head up your ass?

    Yeah, that makes sense.

    You are also a projectionist as you like to project your weakness onto others.

    It is NOT my fault that you are an imbecile and cannot support your claims. And then when you make a reference that reference does not even support your claim.

    I am more than willing to put money on this and take it to the public.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home