| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Callodyn Bradlock" |
| Date: |
01 Sep 2004 03:00:44 AM |
| Object: |
God exists, nature testifies to this |
Hi all
One of the philisophical arguments that led me to believe in God
was the arguement from Design. Essentially it states that nature
is so incredibly, complex and wonderful that it is testimony
to a creator. It stands to reason - if there is a design, there
is a designer - and nature has a definite design to it.
Your thoughts to my email address below would be appreciated.
Kind regards
Callodyn Bradlock
Canberra, Australia
email:
.
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
01 Sep 2004 06:44:04 AM |
|
|
On 1 Sep 2004 01:00:44 -0700 in alt.atheism, Callodyn Bradlock
(xadinaomega@hotmail.com (Callodyn Bradlock)) said, directing the
reply to alt.atheism
Hi all
One of the philisophical arguments that led me to believe in God
was the arguement from Design.
You might try reading a little Hume then. He trashed the argument from
design well over 200 years ago.
http://www.faithnet.org.uk/AS%20Subjects/Philosophyofreligion/humedesign.htm
Essentially it states that nature
is so incredibly, complex and wonderful that it is testimony
to a creator. It stands to reason - if there is a design, there
is a designer - and nature has a definite design to it.
Well, Hume aside for a moment, one wonders what one might deduce about
the nature of the supposed Designer from his creation.
As Darwin wrote:
<start>
I am bewildered. I have no intention to write atheistically. But I own
that I cannot see as plainly as others, and as I should wish to do,
evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to
me much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a
beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the
Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the
living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.
<end>
The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, New York, Basic Books, 1958,
vol.1 p105
And before you answer that, consider the virtues of not being a
special pleader...
Your thoughts to my email address below would be appreciated.
Kind regards
Callodyn Bradlock
Canberra, Australia
email:
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
01 Sep 2004 11:37:35 AM |
|
|
"Callodyn Bradlock" <xadinaomega@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c33c5677.0409010000.1625f62@posting.google.com...
Hi all
One of the philisophical arguments that led me to believe in God
was the arguement from Design. Essentially it states that nature
is so incredibly, complex and wonderful that it is testimony
to a creator. It stands to reason - if there is a design, there
is a designer - and nature has a definite design to it.
Your thoughts to my email address below would be appreciated.
Kind regards
Callodyn Bradlock
Canberra, Australia
email:
Lack of understanding of how something works does not constitute proof of a
higher power by any stretch of the imagination.
Kathryn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
01 Sep 2004 04:46:34 PM |
|
|
When Nature testifies, does she swear on a Bible or just take an oath?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
01 Sep 2004 06:53:11 AM |
|
|
"Callodyn Bradlock" <xadinaomega@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c33c5677.0409010000.1625f62@posting.google.com...
Hi all
One of the philisophical arguments that led me to believe in God
was the arguement from Design. Essentially it states that nature
is so incredibly, complex and wonderful that it is testimony
to a creator. It stands to reason - if there is a design, there
is a designer - and nature has a definite design to it.
Sorry, babe, but this is only your opinion. If you have objective,
verifiable evidence that your god exists, please come back and let us know.
Your thoughts to my email address below would be appreciated.
How about my thoughts on this newsgroup you spammed to, because that's the
only place where you're going to get them.
--
__________
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden wodencharternet" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
01 Sep 2004 09:32:21 PM |
|
|
(Callodyn Bradlock) wrote in
news:c33c5677.0409010000.1625f62@posting.google.com:
Hi all
One of the philisophical arguments that led me to believe in God
was the arguement from Design. Essentially it states that nature
is so incredibly, complex and wonderful that it is testimony
to a creator. It stands to reason - if there is a design, there
is a designer - and nature has a definite design to it.
Your thoughts to my email address below would be appreciated.
Kind regards
Callodyn Bradlock
Canberra, Australia
email:
I wonder who designed this god?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
02 Sep 2004 04:23:33 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 02:32:21 +0000 in episode
<Xns9557E58C1C3C0wodencharternet@216.168.3.44> we saw our hero Woden
<wodencharternet>:
xadinaomega@hotmail.com (Callodyn Bradlock) wrote in
news:c33c5677.0409010000.1625f62@posting.google.com:
Hi all
One of the philisophical arguments that led me to believe in God was the
arguement from Design. Essentially it states that nature is so
incredibly, complex and wonderful that it is testimony to a creator. It
stands to reason - if there is a design, there is a designer - and
nature has a definite design to it.
Your thoughts to my email address below would be appreciated.
Kind regards
Callodyn Bradlock
Canberra, Australia
email:
I wonder who designed this god?
It was like that when I got here.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden wodencharternet" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
02 Sep 2004 07:07:36 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in
news:3NednVafSOTOEqrcRVn-iw@megapath.net:
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 02:32:21 +0000 in episode
<Xns9557E58C1C3C0wodencharternet@216.168.3.44> we saw our hero Woden
<wodencharternet>:
xadinaomega@hotmail.com (Callodyn Bradlock) wrote in
news:c33c5677.0409010000.1625f62@posting.google.com:
Hi all
One of the philisophical arguments that led me to believe in God was
the arguement from Design. Essentially it states that nature is so
incredibly, complex and wonderful that it is testimony to a creator.
It stands to reason - if there is a design, there is a designer -
and nature has a definite design to it.
Your thoughts to my email address below would be appreciated.
Kind regards
Callodyn Bradlock
Canberra, Australia
email:
I wonder who designed this god?
It was like that when I got here.
Damn, no one is willing to take responsibility these days...
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
02 Sep 2004 07:52:31 PM |
|
|
(Callodyn Bradlock) wrote in message news:<c33c5677.0409010000.1625f62@posting.google.com>...
Hi all
One of the philisophical arguments that led me to believe in God
was the arguement from Design. Essentially it states that nature
is so incredibly, complex and wonderful that it is testimony
to a creator. It stands to reason - if there is a design, there
is a designer - and nature has a definite design to it.
No one has ever presented any valid evidence that the universe
exhibits any design whatsoever.
When it comes to universes, we have a sample of only one. This is an
entirely insufficient sample from which to draw such a conclusion.
What criteria would you use to distinguish a designed universe from a
naturally occurring one?
The teleological argument ("from design") was exemplified by Rev.
William Paley over 200 years ago and is as pathetic now as it was
then, even under its new guises of "intelligent design" and
"irreducible complexity".
Paley argued (the now cliched position) that if he were out walking
and saw a rock upon the ground, he would not imagine for a minute that
someone had made it, whereas if he saw a watch lying there, he would
at once know it was the result of intelligent work.
He was too stupid to recognize that in his very first foray he had
already argued himself out of his own position! His very premise is
that the universe, which includes every rock in it, exhibits design,
yet in this first argument he admits that while you would recognize a
watch as having been designed, you would not so recognize a rock!
His "argument from disarray" becomes a complete rout when you realize
that the only reason we know a watch (or any other manufactured
article of human origin) is not a natural occurrence is that we a
priori know it is designed because we see (or read about or learn of)
watches (machines, artwork, etc) being designed as part of our
upbringing, education, and culture. That's the reason we can
distinguish these things from natural objects - not because of any
intrinsic quality.
We may see an object of human artifice that we have never seen before
and correctly deduce that it was designed, but this again is because
we recognize the hallmarks of *human* construction.
We have no such a priori knowledge of universes being designed, and
therefore have nothing to compare this universe with.
Creationists will try to argue that I have now made their case for
them in my argument above that a person can recognize as intelligently
designed an object they've never seen before because it bears the
hallmarks of intelligent construction. They will then try to maintain
that you can say this same thing about the universe, but as they do
so, they fall inescapably into a trap. That's why I emphasized
*human* above.
While we can recognize *human* work, we have nothing from which to
infer the work of gods. So either the creationists must maintain that
this god is no different from a human in its thought processes and
skills (including poor planning and blunders), or they must admit that
we cannot determine, from a sample of one, what is a manufactured
universe and what is not.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
02 Sep 2004 09:22:50 PM |
|
|
Budikka wrote:
xadinaomega@hotmail.com (Callodyn Bradlock) wrote in message
news:<c33c5677.0409010000.1625f62@posting.google.com>...
Hi all
One of the philisophical arguments that led me to believe in God
was the arguement from Design. Essentially it states that nature
is so incredibly, complex and wonderful that it is testimony
to a creator. It stands to reason - if there is a design, there
is a designer - and nature has a definite design to it.
No one has ever presented any valid evidence that the universe
exhibits any design whatsoever.
When it comes to universes, we have a sample of only one. This is an
entirely insufficient sample from which to draw such a conclusion.
What criteria would you use to distinguish a designed universe from a
naturally occurring one?
The teleological argument ("from design") was exemplified by Rev.
William Paley over 200 years ago and is as pathetic now as it was
then, even under its new guises of "intelligent design" and
"irreducible complexity".
Paley argued (the now cliched position) that if he were out walking
and saw a rock upon the ground, he would not imagine for a minute that
someone had made it, whereas if he saw a watch lying there, he would
at once know it was the result of intelligent work.
He was too stupid to recognize that in his very first foray he had
already argued himself out of his own position! His very premise is
that the universe, which includes every rock in it, exhibits design,
yet in this first argument he admits that while you would recognize a
watch as having been designed, you would not so recognize a rock!
It came full circle for me a few months ago. I thought the guy had hollowed
out a bunch of rocks to put his hot tub in.
Turns out the whole thing was man made and sculpted by hand so the rocks
would look natural. Even up close - on TV - they looked like rocks.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SReeseMe" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
01 Sep 2004 07:11:25 AM |
|
|
Subject: God exists, nature testifies to this
From: (Callodyn Bradlock)
Date: 09/01/2004 4:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <c33c5677.0409010000.1625f62@posting.google.com>
Hi all
One of the philisophical arguments that led me to believe in God
was the arguement from Design. Essentially it states that nature
is so incredibly, complex and wonderful that it is testimony
to a creator. It stands to reason - if there is a design, there
is a designer - and nature has a definite design to it.
Yawn! Another old, tired and quite frankly not to well thought out argument.
Your thoughts to my email address below would be appreciated.
Kind regards
Callodyn Bradlock
Canberra, Australia
email:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "GlennGlenn" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
01 Sep 2004 11:40:20 AM |
|
|
Your thoughts to my email address below would be appreciated.
If that's your email address, I'll eat my watch.
GlennGlenn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
01 Sep 2004 12:28:13 PM |
|
|
on 01 Sep 2004 in alt.atheism, GlennGlenn dropped trou, farted, then
shouted:
Your thoughts to my email address below would be appreciated.
If that's your email address, I'll eat my watch.
NOOOOOO! Then you'll need a Watchmaker!
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
The whole foundation of Christianity is based on the idea that
intellectualism is the work of the Devil. Remember the apple on the tree?
Okay, it was the Tree of Knowledge. "You eat this apple, you're going to be
as smart as God. We can't have that."
[Frank Zappa]
.
|
|
|
| User: "torch" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
01 Sep 2004 02:12:26 PM |
|
|
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95576A88D49A2vicman@127.0.0.1...
on 01 Sep 2004 in alt.atheism, GlennGlenn dropped trou, farted, then
shouted:
Your thoughts to my email address below would be appreciated.
If that's your email address, I'll eat my watch.
NOOOOOO! Then you'll need a Watchmaker!
a blind one perhaps
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
The whole foundation of Christianity is based on the idea that
intellectualism is the work of the Devil. Remember the apple on the tree?
Okay, it was the Tree of Knowledge. "You eat this apple, you're going to
be
as smart as God. We can't have that."
[Frank Zappa]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puck Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
02 Sep 2004 04:28:44 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 12:28:13 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
on 01 Sep 2004 in alt.atheism, GlennGlenn dropped trou, farted, then
shouted:
Your thoughts to my email address below would be appreciated.
If that's your email address, I'll eat my watch.
NOOOOOO! Then you'll need a Watchmaker!
Senna pods, more like.
--
Puck Greenman
#162
BAAWA Knight.
Blesed is the self righteous xtian,
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he
comes out with:
God told him to say it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
01 Sep 2004 11:59:23 PM |
|
|
Callodyn Bradlock wrote:
Hi all
One of the philisophical arguments that led me to believe in God
was the arguement from Design. Essentially it states that nature
is so incredibly, complex and wonderful that it is testimony
to a creator.
Not at all. You will find complex life forms next to plasma spouts
in deep sea situations. There will be found living forms that
cannot exist anywhere else, pointing to evolution and certainly not
to any creators. These life forms were unknown until very recently.
If a god formed our world what formed god?
Early man understood nothing. E He blamed evil spirits for all
tragedies and then along came their imaginary gods to counter the
evil spirits. Millions of years ago, before humanoids, there were no
gods.
Bob
humanist Brit
Hong kong
The kindly God who lovingly fashioned each and every one of us and
sprinkled the sky with shining stars for our delight - that God is,
like Santa Claus, a myth of childhood, not anything a sane,
undeluded adult could literally believe in. That God must either be
turned into a symbol for something less concrete or abandoned
altogether.
[Daniel Dennett]
"God and Satan alike are essentially human figures,
the one a projection of ourselves, the other of our enemies."
[Lord Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)]
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I
equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian God may
exist; so may the Gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of
Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any
other: they lie outside the region of probable knowledge, and
therefore there is no reason to consider any of them."
[Lord Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)]
"The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by Homo Sapiens is
that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes,
wants the saccharine adoration of his creations, that he can be
persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not
receive this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real
shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the
oldest, largest and least productive industries in history."
[Robert Heinlein]
It stands to reason - if there is a design, there
is a designer - and nature has a definite design to it.
Your thoughts to my email address below would be appreciated.
Kind regards
Callodyn Bradlock
Canberra, Australia
email:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
01 Sep 2004 03:06:20 AM |
|
|
Callodyn Bradlock wrote:
Hi all
One of the philisophical arguments that led me to believe in God
was the arguement from Design. Essentially it states that nature
is so incredibly, complex and wonderful that it is testimony
to a creator. It stands to reason - if there is a design, there
is a designer - and nature has a definite design to it.
Your thoughts to my email address below would be appreciated.
So you belive in god because nature seems complex and wonderful to you.
Interesting.
But you believe that something far more complex and wonderful, in your
opinion, was not designed and created because....
Or are their designers all the way up?
Please provide a logical argument for picking an uncaused designer over an
infinite number of designers.
After that the real work starts.
I will bet a whole nickel that you do not know what comes next.
The Mule did.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
01 Sep 2004 01:57:20 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<0qfZc.14374$Az4.10878@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>...
Callodyn Bradlock wrote:
Hi all
One of the philisophical arguments that led me to believe in God
was the arguement from Design. Essentially it states that nature
is so incredibly, complex and wonderful that it is testimony
to a creator. It stands to reason - if there is a design, there
is a designer - and nature has a definite design to it.
Your thoughts to my email address below would be appreciated.
So you belive in god because nature seems complex and wonderful to you.
Interesting.
But you believe that something far more complex and wonderful, in your
opinion, was not designed and created because....
Or are their designers all the way up?
Please provide a logical argument for picking an uncaused designer over an
infinite number of designers.
Well, the problem I would note is that the latter position leads to an
infinite regress. Or are you another one of these types who disagrees
with the philosophical position that a theory or hypothesis that
implies an infinite regress has serious problems?
Nonetheless, such an objection shows one flaw with design arguments:
they cannot stand without a first cause argument. I can easily point
to an example of a highly complex thing being brought about (or
created, or caused to exist) by a wholly unconscious agent, therefore
complexity does not, in itself, imply a conscious designer. I have in
mind an accorn, which is immensely complex, yet brought about by an
unconscious agent (a tree). A proponent of design arguments may then
ask where that tree came from, to which the reply is another tree. And
that tree? Yet another tree. Suddenly we're no longer discussing
design, but rather something akin to a first cause argument, where we
argue whether it is possible to have an infinite regress of trees.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BMR" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
03 Sep 2004 08:06:46 AM |
|
|
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> ha scritto nel
Well, the problem I would note is that the latter position leads to an
infinite regress. Or are you another one of these types who disagrees
with the philosophical position that a theory or hypothesis that
implies an infinite regress has serious problems?
This is a classic capstone of arbitrary inference. Mind it up.
--
B. Catalano
www.alexamenos.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Clay" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
01 Sep 2004 03:14:48 PM |
|
|
Well, the problem I would note is that the latter position leads to an
infinite regress. Or are you another one of these types who disagrees
with the philosophical position that a theory or hypothesis that
implies an infinite regress has serious problems?
Nonetheless, such an objection shows one flaw with design arguments:
they cannot stand without a first cause argument. I can easily point
to an example of a highly complex thing being brought about (or
created, or caused to exist) by a wholly unconscious agent, therefore
complexity does not, in itself, imply a conscious designer. I have in
mind an accorn, which is immensely complex, yet brought about by an
unconscious agent (a tree). A proponent of design arguments may then
ask where that tree came from, to which the reply is another tree. And
that tree? Yet another tree. Suddenly we're no longer discussing
design, but rather something akin to a first cause argument, where we
argue whether it is possible to have an infinite regress of trees.
Please could I have a go at tackling this particular repost?
I believe the evolutionists would not agree that we're implying infinite
regression. There are no infinite number of trees but only a *very* long
line of parent trees (each of a slightly inferior type). If you go back far
enough you get little "acrorns" of primordial slime which came from parent
trees of even slimier slime,
Ben
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
01 Sep 2004 03:24:50 PM |
|
|
Nico Demusopelous wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<0qfZc.14374$Az4.10878@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>...
Callodyn Bradlock wrote:
Hi all
One of the philisophical arguments that led me to believe in God
was the arguement from Design. Essentially it states that nature
is so incredibly, complex and wonderful that it is testimony
to a creator. It stands to reason - if there is a design, there
is a designer - and nature has a definite design to it.
Your thoughts to my email address below would be appreciated.
So you belive in god because nature seems complex and wonderful to
you.
Interesting.
But you believe that something far more complex and wonderful, in
your opinion, was not designed and created because....
Or are their designers all the way up?
Please provide a logical argument for picking an uncaused designer
over an infinite number of designers.
Well, the problem I would note is that the latter position leads to an
infinite regress. Or are you another one of these types who disagrees
with the philosophical position that a theory or hypothesis that
implies an infinite regress has serious problems?
No, I'm the one saying that from a philosophical point neither can be
comprehended by the human mind and that making a choice is arbitrary. You
picked the one you wanted and "because" is the only reason.
If I was talking about science I would point out that current theory allows
not only for an infinite regression but for the possibility of an infinite
number of infinite regressions.
Nonetheless, such an objection shows one flaw with design arguments:
they cannot stand without a first cause argument.
The first cause argument is as flawed as the designer argument and for the
same reason.
But I note you snipped my question.
WHAT COMES NEXT in your argument?
In several years of people presenting this argument I've yet to see one who
knows enough about it to answer that question.
Until you answer, you are just another one of the parrots.
The Mule knew.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puck Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
02 Sep 2004 04:48:56 PM |
|
|
On 1 Sep 2004 11:57:20 -0700, (Nico
Demusopelous) wrote:
Please provide a logical argument for picking an uncaused designer over an
infinite number of designers.
Well, the problem I would note is that the latter position leads to an
infinite regress.
As does the primer. Eventually you end up with the question, "Where
did the designer come from"?
Xtians get around that by special pleading, "God was not created, it
always existed".
However, this in it's turn, begs the question; If an enormously
complex, and powerful being, can simply exist, why not the far less
complex universe?
Your go.
--
Puck Greenman
#162
BAAWA Knight.
Blesed is the self righteous xtian,
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he
comes out with:
God told him to say it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
01 Sep 2004 03:54:28 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
But you believe that something far more complex and wonderful, in
your opinion, was not designed and created because....
Or are their designers all the way up?
Please provide a logical argument for picking an uncaused designer
over an infinite number of designers.
Well, the problem I would note is that the latter position leads to an
infinite regress. Or are you another one of these types who disagrees
with the philosophical position that a theory or hypothesis that
implies an infinite regress has serious problems?
No, I'm the one saying that from a philosophical point neither can
be comprehended by the human mind and that making a choice is
arbitrary. You picked the one you wanted and "because" is the
only reason.
You offered a bifurcation: either an uncaused designer or an infinite
number of designers. I merely objected that the latter leads to an
infinite regress. Your response, however, also included the fact that
you consider an infinite regress possible. Oh well.
Nonetheless, such an objection shows one flaw with design arguments:
they cannot stand without a first cause argument.
The first cause argument is as flawed as the designer argument and
for the same reason.
First of all, there is more than one first cause argument.
Nonetheless, what is this reason that you are referring to?
But I note you snipped my question.
WHAT COMES NEXT in your argument?
The problem is I don't get the question. Next in my argument? Next
after what? In which argument of mine? Thanks for keeping it vague.
The mule kept it vague.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
02 Sep 2004 06:24:39 AM |
|
|
(Nico Demusopelous) wrote in message news:<2c68d44e.0409011254.4deae55c@posting.google.com>...
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
snip
You offered a bifurcation: either an uncaused designer or an infinite
number of designers. I merely objected that the latter leads to an
infinite regress.
I guess we can conclude then that neither are likely to be true.
Your response, however, also included the fact that
you consider an infinite regress possible.
Or that the designer argument implies the need for an infinite regres
- unless one can explain why the designer is exempt from the
requirement of being designed.
snip
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
02 Sep 2004 03:48:12 PM |
|
|
(Thomas P.) wrote in message news:<58f199d9.0409020324.4a9504d7@posting.google.com>...
Or that the designer argument implies the need for an infinite regres
- unless one can explain why the designer is exempt from the
requirement of being designed.
So, then, you agree with me that upon further reflection design
arguments usually fall apart and switch to discussions about infinite
regresses and first causes? That was precisely my point: the design
argument does not seem to be able to stand on its own without a first
cause argument. So if you're agreeing with me, whom are you
disagreeing with?!?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
02 Sep 2004 04:52:02 PM |
|
|
Nico Demusopelous wrote:
thomasagain@yahoo.dk (Thomas P.) wrote in message
news:<58f199d9.0409020324.4a9504d7@posting.google.com>...
Or that the designer argument implies the need for an infinite regres
- unless one can explain why the designer is exempt from the
requirement of being designed.
So, then, you agree with me that upon further reflection design
arguments usually fall apart and switch to discussions about infinite
regresses and first causes? That was precisely my point: the design
argument does not seem to be able to stand on its own without a first
cause argument. So if you're agreeing with me, whom are you
disagreeing with?!?
I, for one, am not agreeing with you.
Both arguments are thinly veiled excuses to prove the existance of a god.
Both arguments make arbitrary decisions based on what the person wants.
Both arguments fail for this reason.
Neither argument even bothers to define the words they use. I may "cause"
something to happen simply by hireing a "designer" who designs what I want
and then goes out and hires an engineer who can actually build the damned
(in our case) thing.
No one who brings these arguments to this forum in the time that I have been
here have been able to do more than parrot them and they do not know what
the next step is, nor the reason for it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
01 Sep 2004 11:34:53 PM |
|
|
Mike Painter wrote:
Callodyn Bradlock wrote:
Hi all
One of the philisophical arguments that led me to believe in God
was the arguement from Design. Essentially it states that nature
is so incredibly, complex and wonderful that it is testimony
to a creator. It stands to reason - if there is a design, there
is a designer - and nature has a definite design to it.
Your thoughts to my email address below would be appreciated.
So you belive in god because nature seems complex and wonderful to you.
Interesting.
But you believe that something far more complex and wonderful, in your
opinion, was not designed and created because....
Or are their designers all the way up?
No, no, no. It's *turtles*, all the way down.
Please provide a logical argument for picking an uncaused designer over an
infinite number of designers.
After that the real work starts.
I will bet a whole nickel that you do not know what comes next.
The Mule did.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
02 Sep 2004 03:55:05 AM |
|
|
Olrik wrote:
Mike Painter wrote:
Callodyn Bradlock wrote:
Hi all
One of the philisophical arguments that led me to believe in God
was the arguement from Design. Essentially it states that nature
is so incredibly, complex and wonderful that it is testimony
to a creator. It stands to reason - if there is a design, there
is a designer - and nature has a definite design to it.
Your thoughts to my email address below would be appreciated.
So you belive in god because nature seems complex and wonderful to
you.
Interesting.
But you believe that something far more complex and wonderful, in
your opinion, was not designed and created because....
Or are their designers all the way up?
No, no, no. It's *turtles*, all the way down.
I think its four elephants, then turtles.
The question was about up, not down but that raises an interesting question.
Are we elephants or turtles to the the designer one step above us?
Please provide a logical argument for picking an uncaused designer
over an infinite number of designers.
After that the real work starts.
I will bet a whole nickel that you do not know what comes next.
The Mule did.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
02 Sep 2004 10:12:21 PM |
|
|
Mike Painter wrote:
Olrik wrote:
Mike Painter wrote:
Callodyn Bradlock wrote:
Hi all
One of the philisophical arguments that led me to believe in God
was the arguement from Design. Essentially it states that nature
is so incredibly, complex and wonderful that it is testimony
to a creator. It stands to reason - if there is a design, there
is a designer - and nature has a definite design to it.
Your thoughts to my email address below would be appreciated.
So you belive in god because nature seems complex and wonderful to
you.
Interesting.
But you believe that something far more complex and wonderful, in
your opinion, was not designed and created because....
Or are their designers all the way up?
No, no, no. It's *turtles*, all the way down.
I think its four elephants, then turtles.
The question was about up, not down but that raises an interesting question.
Are we elephants or turtles to the the designer one step above us?
I can't see the elephants for the turtles!
Please provide a logical argument for picking an uncaused designer
over an infinite number of designers.
After that the real work starts.
I will bet a whole nickel that you do not know what comes next.
The Mule did.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
01 Sep 2004 03:59:14 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:14:48 +0100 "Ben Clay" <ben.familyclay@org@uk>
wrote:
Well, the problem I would note is that the latter position leads to an
infinite regress. Or are you another one of these types who disagrees
with the philosophical position that a theory or hypothesis that
implies an infinite regress has serious problems?
Nonetheless, such an objection shows one flaw with design arguments:
they cannot stand without a first cause argument. I can easily point
to an example of a highly complex thing being brought about (or
created, or caused to exist) by a wholly unconscious agent, therefore
complexity does not, in itself, imply a conscious designer. I have in
mind an accorn, which is immensely complex, yet brought about by an
unconscious agent (a tree). A proponent of design arguments may then
ask where that tree came from, to which the reply is another tree. And
that tree? Yet another tree. Suddenly we're no longer discussing
design, but rather something akin to a first cause argument, where we
argue whether it is possible to have an infinite regress of trees.
Please could I have a go at tackling this particular repost?
I believe the evolutionists would not agree that we're implying
infinite regression.
First of all, I'm an "evolutionist" (at least if an "evolutionist" is
one who believes that hereditary change over time serves as the best
natural explanation for our planet's biodiversity). Second, I was not
arguing that evolutionists imply an infinite regress. I was simply
noting that the design argument ultimately boils down to a first cause
argument. That is all.
There are no infinite number of trees but only a *very* long
line of parent trees (each of a slightly inferior type). If you
go back far enough you get little "acrorns" of primordial slime
which came from parent trees of even slimier slime
I agree roughly. I understand that the line of trees does not stretch
back infinitely, I was merely making a point about the design
argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Clay" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
01 Sep 2004 06:10:33 PM |
|
|
8<--- snip, snip
Please could I have a go at tackling this particular repost?
I believe the evolutionists would not agree that we're implying
infinite regression.
First of all, I'm an "evolutionist" (at least if an "evolutionist" is
one who believes that hereditary change over time serves as the best
natural explanation for our planet's biodiversity). Second, I was not
arguing that evolutionists imply an infinite regress. I was simply
noting that the design argument ultimately boils down to a first cause
argument. That is all.
There are no infinite number of trees but only a *very* long
line of parent trees (each of a slightly inferior type). If you
go back far enough you get little "acrorns" of primordial slime
which came from parent trees of even slimier slime
I agree roughly. I understand that the line of trees does not stretch
back infinitely, I was merely making a point about the design
argument.
Thanks for the quick reply.
I *think* we're agreeing so let me understand this. Are you saying that both
the evolutionist and designer arguments require a first cause? No daylight
between the two sides there. It seems that the links to the evolutionists'
first cause are multitudinous (Mike said infinite) with many "creators"
having a hand in what we see today but ultimately we ask: what made the
slime do what it did? The steps are fewer with the designer theory and we
simply ask: what made God?
It seems to me that (presuming the existence of the universe) science and
evolution present a very plausible answer to the first slime-question.
Indeed, discussions elsewhere in this group are talking about the scientific
theories proposing daily cause-free creation of universes. However, the
creationists seem to baulk at the sheer audacity of mankind daring to
question its origins beyond a simple stone age assumption.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
01 Sep 2004 06:14:19 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 1 Sep 2004 01:00:44 -0700,
(Callodyn Bradlock) let us all know that:
Hi all
One of the philisophical arguments that led me to believe in God
was the arguement from Design. Essentially it states that nature
is so incredibly, complex and wonderful that it is testimony
to a creator. It stands to reason - if there is a design, there
is a designer - and nature has a definite design to it.
Your thoughts to my email address below would be appreciated.
Argument from design:
1. See that tree?
2. Boy, it sure looks designed, even though I have no evidence
that it is.
3. Therefore, god exists.
Stupid argument.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: God exists, nature testifies to this |
01 Sep 2004 03:13:44 AM |
|
|
On 1 Sep 2004 01:00:44 -0700, (Callodyn
Bradlock) wrote:
Hi all
One of the philisophical arguments that led me to believe in God
was the arguement from Design.
Which is of course totally bogus because if everything was designed
then there is nothing natural for comparison to determine design.
Face it, you're not telling the truthg here - you ratiuonalised your
existing belief.
It did not "lead you to believe in God". You already believed in it.
Essentially it states that nature
is so incredibly, complex and wonderful that it is testimony
to a creator.
Which does not follow from "complex and wonderful".
It stands to reason - if there is a design, there
is a designer - and nature has a definite design to it.
Only if you are ignorant and expect everybody else to be as
unthinkinglky gullible as you are.
Your thoughts to my email address below would be appreciated.
Kind regards
Callodyn Bradlock
Did you really have a reason to post this inanity to an atheist
newsgrup, or were you just being in-your-face stupid?
Canberra, Australia
email:
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
