Philosophy Discussion Forums

Syamsu wrote: ↑October 12th, 2018, 3:20 pm Is just another atheist, materialist hack playing games. No meanigful argument will ever come from him. And you disallowed calling a generalized structure of creation theory, creationism. That's also just playing games.

Only creationists understand the procedure to prime emotions for honesty and fairness in debate, pay attention to it. Materialists ignore their own emotions, they just focus on the sceintific method. They bring reeking emotional attitudes to debate, they are totally controlled by their prejudices.

Syamsu wrote: ↑October 12th, 2018, 11:31 am Science is presently full of materialists ...

Kevin Levites wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 12:28 pm Intelligent design has always been a touchy subject with me, as it leads to court battles, and arguments over what should and should not be taught in schools.

I simplify the matter by applying Occam's Razor in the following way (in conjunction with ideas from Issac Asimov and Carl Sagan):

If we assume that God (the intelligent designer) created the Universe, then we must ask who created God. If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, then why not simplify matters and assume the the creation of the Universe is an unanswerable question.

Or, if we decide that God has always existed, then we can skip a step and assume that the Universe (in one form or another) has always existed.

As for my take on it, if--indeed--despite this, we still ask who designed God, then we must ask who designed that which designed God, and so on for an infinite regression.

So, the simplest explaination is that there is no intelligent designer, and--therefore--no intelligent design.

Creationists like to hold up the watchmaker argument.

"A watch implies a watchmaker", and then they apply this argument to things like the bacterial flagellum (a kind of microscopic electric motor), and so on.

The problem with these arguments is--in my mind--a kind of "appeal to ignorance" fallacy. We don't know, therefore it must be divine.

It was Hippocrates (the founder of medicine) who said: "Men think eplilepsy divine. If men thought that everything that they didn't understand was divine, then there would be no end of divine things."

Truer words have rarely been spoken.

Syamsu wrote: ↑October 12th, 2018, 9:17 am It is 100 percent proven fact that inteligent design can produce a complex functionally integrated object, as by example of a watchmaker producing a watch. If then we come across a complex functionally integrated object, such as organisms are, then it is reasonable to speculate it was created by intelligent design.

devans99 wrote: ↑July 5th, 2019, 6:00 amWe do not need to ask who created God - God is a brute fact. He exists timelessly. He just 'IS' - there is no tense and nothing logically or temporally prior to God to cause him. Such an entity is a necessity - causality absolutely requires a first cause - else we end up in an infinite regress - an impossibility.

Mark1955 wrote: ↑July 5th, 2019, 3:29 pm

devans99 wrote: ↑July 5th, 2019, 6:00 amWe do not need to ask who created God - God is a brute fact. He exists timelessly. He just 'IS' - there is no tense and nothing logically or temporally prior to God to cause him. Such an entity is a necessity - causality absolutely requires a first cause - else we end up in an infinite regress - an impossibility.

Well you obviously think so, some of us may choos to differ. The concept of 'first' anything is a product of a limited human consciousness that cannot think beyond the limiited sensory inputs except by describing things in the limited terms that it can perceive. If there was no begining and there will be no end then there is no need for a creator because nothing has been created just changed and our observations of physics and chemistry and biology show that lots of change is going on.

devans99 wrote: ↑July 5th, 2019, 3:48 pm

Mark1955 wrote: ↑July 5th, 2019, 3:29 pm
Well you obviously think so, some of us may choos to differ. The concept of 'first' anything is a product of a limited human consciousness that cannot think beyond the limiited sensory inputs except by describing things in the limited terms that it can perceive. If there was no begining and there will be no end then there is no need for a creator because nothing has been created just changed and our observations of physics and chemistry and biology show that lots of change is going on.

My view is that every state of the universe is a function of the previous temporal state. If things have existed 'forever' then there is by definition no first state. If there is no first state, then the second state is undetermined, and the third, so by induction, the universe has no present state and does not exist.