Is there a scientific case for an Intelligent Designer?

[granpa]

Does anybody else find the notion of the First Cause inherently self-contradictory?

I find the idea of a 'cause for the first cause' to be contradictory.

[JohnB]

So that life would evolve such that it would be able to communicate with the designer! That's one hypothesis for "why" that is easily arrived at.

How anthropogenic. Why would a designer want to communicate with us? That is partly my point, all the reasons "Why" are based on what we might want, almost by definition, we can't know "Why" the designer would do it. We can only wonder and theorise from our severely limited perpsective. Hence it's Philosophy, not science.

I think what you are trying to do is use an unanswered question on the next level to deny a possible answer on the level above it.

Not really. I think that if there is any hard evidence, it will be in the "fine" structure of reality. I have doubts that we know enough yet to look comprehensively enough to see those signs if they exist. There is also the matter of whether we would recognise a sign even if we saw it.

[Mr Skeptic]

Does anybody else find the notion of the First Cause inherently self-contradictory?

 

I think you are right. Maybe it was called something else? At the very least, a First Cause cannot be an effect or it would itself need a cause.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I thought it was abundantly clear that I said the only correct answer is simply, "We don't yet know."

 

Wait a minute... That's precisely what my quote in post #46 indicates. Fancy that.

 

Sorry, I read that as "the BB doesn't need a cause". You're right, it could simply be that the laws of cause and effect don't apply before then. However, then you could say the same of an intelligent cause.

 

When I ask "who designed the designer," it's simply to show just how fallacious the logic is of those who support ID. It's not like positing that "god did it" is at all helpful to our understanding of reality... THAT's the point.

 

The standard answer to "Who created God?" is "God was not created" or "God was always there" (similar to if you ask At what number does the number line start?). I've told you this before. Its obvious cause and effect. Only effects need causes. The real question is, what then caused God to create the universe? I think the answer to that one is supposed to be "free will" but I don't buy it.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

How anthropogenic. Why would a designer want to communicate with us? That is partly my point, all the reasons "Why" are based on what we might want, almost by definition, we can't know "Why" the designer would do it. We can only wonder and theorise from our severely limited perpsective. Hence it's Philosophy, not science.

 

Well yes, according to the Bible, God made us in His own image. So it would make sense to anthropomorphize God. On the other hand, the atheist says we created God in our own image, in which case it would again make sense to anthropomorphize God.

Edited April 18, 2009 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

"Who created God?"

 

Humans did. That wasn't hard, at all. Do you have any other questions you'd like me to answer for you?

 

 

The real question is, what then caused God to create the universe?

 

Rubbish. One must first demonstrate the existence of god before they should bother wasting any time speculating and mentally masturbating about what caused that unproven faith-based conjecture to do any-thing.

 

Until you demonstrate existence, you may as well be speculating about which chemicals cause unicorns to be different colors.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think you don't understand the concept of "this question has already been answered, don't bother asking that one but you can ask this one instead". You're welcome.

 

Also, I didn't know that you believed in God's existence. Funny you admit it now.

[iNow]

I think you don't understand the concept of "this question has already been answered, don't bother asking that one but you can ask this one instead". You're welcome.

 

Also, I didn't know that you believed in God's existence. Funny you admit it now.

 

Mr Skeptic - Your comments above are so silly and off base that I'm inclined to believe you are either high or drunk. Good night, man.

[Mr Skeptic]

Who/What designed the designer?

 

Rubbish. One must first demonstrate the existence of god before they should bother wasting any time speculating and mentally masturbating about what caused that unproven faith-based conjecture to do any-thing.

 

Until you demonstrate existence, you may as well be speculating about which chemicals cause unicorns to be different colors.

 

iNow, if you applied your own logic to yourself, then I wouldn't have to point out your double standards. It would save me some trouble and you some embarrassment.

 

In case you don't see the similarity, let me rephrase what you said.

Rubbish. One must first demonstrate the existence of a designer before they should bother wasting any time speculating and mentally masturbating about what designed that unproven faith-based conjecture.

 

Until you demonstrate existence' date=' you may as well be speculating about which chemicals cause unicorns to be different colors.[/quote']

 

No need to be so rude to yourself.

[iNow]

iNow, if you applied your own logic to yourself, then I wouldn't have to point out your double standards. It would save me some trouble and you some embarrassment.

 

In case you don't see the similarity, let me rephrase what you said.

 

 

No need to be so rude to yourself.

 

So, now you're trying to "win" an argument by changing my words? That's a new one.

 

"Well, if you'd said this, then you would have been contradicting yourself... so there!" Give me a break, man.

 

 

 

Further, I'm not the one who was arguing for a designer. I simply pointed out that those who posit a designer are not answering the question, but displacing it. It turns into this infinite regression, and solves nothing. It brings no useful information to the table. It is untestable, without utility, and a waste of time. You're trying so hard to play "gotcha" that you're forgetting to support your own arguments. It's absolutely pathetic.

 

Listen. You know damned well what my meaning was, and I’m frankly tired of your tortured semantic gymnastics in all of these various threads on ID or opposition to same sex marriage. If you have a real argument to support your points, then put it forth, but (I’m sorry to tell you) your word games and “gotcha” attempts are demonstrative only of your lack of merit, reason, and continued floundering on these topics.

Edited April 18, 2009 by iNow

[Mr Skeptic]

At least I'm not the one abusing the quote function to pretend you said something you didn't and then make some sort of silly reply to it just so that it looks like you won some kind of point. But let me get this straight. You ask a question that presupposes an intelligent designer, and you're cool with that. I ask a similar question that presupposes God in the exact same way that your question presupposes an intelligent designer, and you throw a hissy fit. But what pissed you off? Is it that the question presupposes God instead of a designer that changes your disposition from support to hissy fit? Or is it simply that I said it rather than you? I'm genuinely confused. Usually I could explain this by your religious intolerance, but the question I asked was even more hostile to religion than the question you asked.

[iNow]

You ask a question that presupposes an intelligent designer, and you're cool with that.

 

OMG, dude. Let me make this as clear as absolutely possible.

 

People in this thread were talking about an Intelligent Designer.

For them, it was taken as a given that this mysterious agent exists.

IN RESPONSE, I asked them, with an implied (but not explicit) lead in of "If this designer exists, then..." and I asked "Who designed the designer?" to illustrate how they are displacing the question and creating an infinite regression, not answering the question posed.

 

At no point and at no place did I "presuppose" an intelligent designer.

 

 

Here's the thing. If you're NOT playing semantic games, then your ability to understand the meaning of others is seriously called into question. You're obviously a bright guy, as evidenced by your many contributions to this forum. However, the moment the concept of god or gay marriage comes up, your arguments become specious, weak, and your representations of the positions of others fallacious.

 

 

Did the above walk through help you, or do you wish to continue this rather irritating tangent?

[Mr Skeptic]

OMG, dude. Let me make this as clear as absolutely possible.

 

People in this thread were talking about an Intelligent Designer.

For them, it was taken as a given that this mysterious agent exists.

IN RESPONSE, I asked them, with an implied (but not explicit) lead in of "If this designer exists, then..." and I asked "Who designed the designer?" to illustrate how they are displacing the question and creating an infinite regression, not answering the question posed.

 

At no point and at no place did I "presuppose" an intelligent designer.

 

Yes you did, at least moreso than I did.

Who/What designed the designer?

The real question is, what then caused God to create the universe? I think the answer to that one is supposed to be "free will" but I don't buy it.

Now, you did not explicitly include an "if" like I did (what then = if the previous is true). Still, I didn't take a cheapshot by saying that your question presupposes a designer ... until you not only did that to me, but piled on a helping of verbal abuse and insults. Then I showed you how silly it looked for you to say that, considering what you said earlier. I'm actually surprised you couldn't understand what I said, but you do tend to do that when it comes to anything vaguely related to religion.

 

Here's the thing. If you're NOT playing semantic games, then your ability to understand the meaning of others is seriously called into question. You're obviously a bright guy, as evidenced by your many contributions to this forum. However, the moment the concept of god or gay marriage comes up, your arguments become specious, weak, and your representations of the positions of others fallacious.

 

Oh, I understood you quite well (except as I mentioned, a minor misunderstanding of #46). If feeding you back your own twisted logic and making you apply your own standards to yourself is a semantic game, then I suppose you could say I'm doing that. I think that the problem is your inability to understand the meaning of others, as evidenced, for example, by your tirade in #56.

 

Now, I understand that a large part of your intolerance when it comes to the concepts of god and gay marriage is intentional. But please remember that a large part of intolerance is an inability/unwillingness to understand others or see things from their point of view. I think that your intolerance is blinding you a bit, and maybe you would be better off with less of it. Alternately, perhaps you should focus your intolerance on irrationality, rather than on people who hold certain beliefs or you think hold certain beliefs. You know, you can respect people while being intolerant of some of their behavior.

 

Did the above walk through help you, or do you wish to continue this rather irritating tangent?

 

I think that you will need a third set of eyes, though of course you can end this whenever you want.

[iNow]

Okay… Golly. You sure got me with that one. Wowsers. I sure feel silly. Gosh and shucks and stuff.

Now, let’s move forward, shall we?

[Glider]

Get a grip, both of you.

[swansont]

Get a grip, both of you.

 

Too right.

 

Let's stay on topic of the OP, which was scientific evidence for some designer, and not other aspects of the topic

[lucaspa]

Who/What designed the designer?

 

ID doesn't answer the question of origin, it displaces it.

 

Irrelevant. All science does that. What caused the Big Bang? That's displacing the question of origin, isn't it? But does that invalidate that the Big Bang is the origin of our universe? NO!

 

iNow, what you are doing is invalid science. You are trying to use an unanswered question on the next level to invalidate an answer on the level above.

 

Whenever we answer a question, 3 or 4 new questions pop up out of the answer. That we don't know the answer to those questions has no effect on the answer.

 

Question: Why does the universe exist?

Possible answer: an intelligent entity created it.

New question: what's the origin of the intelligent entity?

 

IF it turns out our universe was created by an intelligent entity, then it will be time to ask the origin of the intelligent entity.

 

If we take your criteria that we can dismiss an answer because we can't answer the next level, all science ceases.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Ah... Well, you're mistaken to assume that it had a cause at all,

 

Aren't you equally mistaken to assume that the intelligent entity had a cause? Sauce for the goose.

 

Either way, the only correct answer is, "We don't yet know,"

 

That is the correct answer to "what is the origin of the intelligent entity?"

 

iNow, if it turns out that Logical and Mathematical Necessity caused the universe to exist, that is just as much a dead end as "God did it".

 

Sometime we are going to get to an Uncaused Cause that started the chain of cause and effect. Whether that is deity, Logical and Mathematical Necessity, quantum fluctuation, etc, is immaterial. Your objections apply to each of them, but you are only using them as arguments against deity. That's Special Pleading

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Humans did.

 

Your evidence, please? And since this is the science forums, the peer-reviewed articles.

 

One must first demonstrate the existence of god before they should bother wasting any time speculating and mentally masturbating about what caused that unproven faith-based conjecture to do any-thing.

 

Ah, Logical Positivism rears its ugly head again. As it happens, theists do have evidence of existence. That evidence comes from outside science. It is evidence you don't think is valid. This isn't about convincing you it is valid, but showing you that theists are basing their reasoning on evidence.

 

In contrast, you are basing your reasoning on denial of evidence. For your personal beliefs, I don't care. But in trying to make your denial "scientific", you are attempting to change what science is and how it works. That I care about.

 

Until you demonstrate existence, you may as well be speculating about which chemicals cause unicorns to be different colors.

 

So we should drop all work in String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, Loop Quantum Cosmology, No Boundary, etc? That's the inevitable conclusion from your criteria. All of these are based on entities that haven't been demonstrated to exist. So all is worthless speculation, according to you.

 

This is one way you end up warping and harming science.

Edited April 20, 2009 by lucaspa
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

iNow, what you are doing is invalid science.

That's most likely because the concept of an intelligent designer is not a scientific one. Go figure.

 

I won't be addressing your post. I have no further interest in treating this topic seriously. You guys can speculate all you want. I'm tired of having to censor myself on this topic, so it's easier if I just choose not to post.

 

 

Again... If you wish to interpret this as a personal victory for an IDer, then feel free.

 

 

If any of you manage to define what your designer is, and how we can test it, then I'll be sure to return and offer more of my "invalid science" for you to attack.

[lucaspa]

That's most likely because the concept of an intelligent designer is not a scientific one.

 

Nice duck, but you know that wasn't what I was referring to. Please try to be more honest about the points being made. You know I was referring to your criteria that you can dismiss an intelligent entity as creator of the universe because we don't know the origin of the intelligent entity. That criteria is invalid science.

 

I won't be addressing your post.

 

You don't have any interest in backing up your serious claim that humans invented deity? Wow!

 

I have no further interest in treating this topic seriously.

 

The topic is proper science. You don't want to treat that seriously? Then why are you in a science forum?

 

Again... If you wish to interpret this as a personal victory for an IDer, then feel free.

 

As you well know, I'm not an IDer. ID is different from the hypothesis that the universe itself and the order of the universe was the direct action of an intelligent entity. ID is the hypothesis that specific entities within the universe -- particularly living things -- are directly manufactured by an intelligent entity.

 

To emphasize what I stated before: I don't care what your personal beliefs are. It would appear that you are atheist. Fine. What concerns me are particular arguments you are using against deity. Those arguments are bad science. If we took those arguments seriously, then science would have to stop.

[iNow]

Lucaspa - No offense, but it's bewildering the number of times you've strawmanned my actual position in just those two short posts. I'll close by stating that I dismiss the idea of a designer for the same reason I dismiss the idea of the tooth fairy. Cheers.

[Lan(r)12]

you can't argue with a mod iNow, they ALWAYS win lol.

And you're wrong

[iNow]

Oh, for the love of Thor... FFS, I don't know why I even bother. It's like I'm here being asked to defend the existence of the easter bunny, and being told I'm wrong to dismiss it's existence because I cannot prove it doesn't exist.

 

I was perfectly ****ing happy to leave this thread alone, and then days later a trio of staff members decide to keep bumping it, and further to antagonize me.

 

 

Whenever we answer a question, 3 or 4 new questions pop up out of the answer. That we don't know the answer to those questions has no effect on the answer.

Here's the thing. Nobody provided an answer that has been confirmed as correct. The issue is the building of castles in sand. My point is that it doesn't matter what new questions you ask since you have zero certainty (and further, zero ways to be certain) on the answer you've posited.

 

 

 

IF it turns out our universe was created by an intelligent entity, then it will be time to ask the origin of the intelligent entity.

Which is pretty much exactly what I said. Where's the problem here?

 

 

If we take your criteria that we can dismiss an answer because we can't answer the next level, all science ceases.

I didn't say that "we can dismiss an answer." I said that "I" am dismissing the suggestion which is pretending to be an answer.

 

Also, I say again... It's not science as neither you nor anybody else has defined this "designer" in a consistent testable manner.

 

 

That is the correct answer to "what is the origin of the intelligent entity?"

Okay. When did anyone demonstrate the existence of an intelligent entity? That's been my point this whole time. I personally find it to be a tremendous waste of time since the existence itself is highly questionable. It's like asking the best way to count the number of angels which can fit on the head of a pin without bothering to demonstrate the existence of angels or give them any parameters.

 

 

Sometime we are going to get to an Uncaused Cause that started the chain of cause and effect.

Don't you mean that you "think" we are going to find an uncaused cause sometime? If not, then let's see your sources for this statement of certainty. Let's be consistent with ourselves, shall we?

 

 

Whether that is deity, Logical and Mathematical Necessity, quantum fluctuation, etc, is immaterial. Your objections apply to each of them, but you are only using them as arguments against deity. That's Special Pleading

Actually, that whole comment is bullshit, since I never argued nonexistence. I stated that positing a designer doesn't answer any questions, but displaces them. This is one of those strawmen to which I previously referred. I was showing the weakness in the supporting argument, not making a new one of my own.

 

 

Your evidence, please?

You want me to provide evidence of human created deities? Errmmm... Okay. Isn't that a bit like asking me to prove that there is a force which keeps us pulled to the earth? "How DARE you say there is such a thing as gravity without providing references!" Laughable request, lucaspa. Laughable, indeed.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology

 

 

If you're going to be a hard ass, I'll rephrase my comment. Humans created the idea of deity.

 

 

 

As it happens, theists do have evidence of existence. That evidence comes from outside science. It is evidence you don't think is valid.

Since you've been harping on me about "being scientific," I think it's fair to say that your own argument is internally inconsistent. Evidence outside of science is not evidence at all, precisely because you are asking to limit this to a scientific discussion.

 

And yes, I do reject that "the sun and the stars and clouds are evidence of a creator." I also reject that my refrigerator, my television, and my toaster oven are evidence of leprechauns.

 

 

 

This isn't about convincing you it is valid, but showing you that theists are basing their reasoning on evidence.

You are now equivocating... AGAIN... about what constitutes evidence. You admitted above that this so called "evidence" is outside science, while simultaneously arguing that this is a scientific question. You cannot have it both ways. It's not evidence if it's not scientific, and this is by your own standards. If you wish to call a nightmare evidence of vampires, that's fine, but you don't get to say that this is "scientific" evidence of the existence of vampires at the same time. At best, it's evidence of the idea of vampires.

 

Make up your mind. If you're going to hold me to such standards, perhaps you should first try leading by example.

 

 

In contrast, you are basing your reasoning on denial of evidence. For your personal beliefs, I don't care. But in trying to make your denial "scientific", you are attempting to change what science is and how it works. That I care about.

How is pointing out a logical fallacy in the position of those who posit a creator, and sincerely stating that I personally dismiss their conjecture the same thing as "attempting to change what science is and how it works?"

 

Are you always this melodramatic?

 

 

So we should drop all work in String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, Loop Quantum Cosmology, No Boundary, etc? That's the inevitable conclusion from your criteria.

No, actually, it's not. That's a false comparison. All of those research arenas are trying to describe something which we know exists and what can be tested. You are equating those research arenas with trying to describe the cause of our universe by positing something which is ill defined, based purely on conjecture, and untestable by definition.

 

Apples and oranges. Trying to describe the volume of a container on your desk is NOT the same thing as trying to describe the mass of an invisible pink unicorn. So... if you can show me the equivalent effect caused by a creator as we have with things like gravity and electrodynamics, then please do so. Until then, you're argument fails miserably.

 

 

All of these are based on entities that haven't been demonstrated to exist. So all is worthless speculation, according to you.

Since when was gravity not been demonstrated to exist? Since when is atomic interaction demonstrated not to exist? You are conflating the effect being described with the attempts to describe it. The difference is that the effects in your examples are supportable with hard evidence and real world scientific tests.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And since when is religious discussion about deities allowed at this forum? All this talk about science is a pathetic smoke screen. This is philosophy, and empiricism is not even possible. Yeah... Some science.

Edited April 20, 2009 by iNow

[lucaspa]

being told I'm wrong to dismiss it's existence because I cannot prove it doesn't exist.

 

Exactly right! Science disproves entities. What we can't disprove remains on the table as a possibility. We can't "dismiss its existence". You and I can make a personal decision to believe it doesn't exist, but we can't, speaking for science, dismiss its existence. Let me give you just 2 examples:

"1. Tachyons: can we rule them out.

 

The special theory of relativity has been tested to unprecedented accuracy, and appears unassailable. Yet tachyons are a problem. Though they are allowed by the theory, they bring with them all sorts of unpalatable properties. Physicists would like to rule them out once and for all, but lack a convincing nonexistence proof. Until they construct one, we cannot be sure that a tachyon won't suddenly be discovered.

 

3. Time travel: just a fanstasy?

 

The investigation of exotic spacetimes that seem to permit travel into the past will remain an active field of research. So far, the loophole in the known laws of physics that permits time travel is very small indeed. Realistic time-travel scenarios are not known at the time of writing. But as with tachyons, in the absence of a no-go proof, the possibility has to stay on the agenda. So long as it does, paradoxes will haunt us.'' Paul Davies, About Time, 1994.

 

My point is that it doesn't matter what new questions you ask since you have zero certainty (and further, zero ways to be certain) on the answer you've posited.

 

No one is saying there's certainty on the answer posited. The point is that you are dismissing the possibility of the answer based on unanswered questions if the posited answer is correct. You can't do that. If you hold to that criteria, then we have no even "certain" answers, because each answer is going to give rise to new questions.

 

Which is pretty much exactly what I said. Where's the problem here?

 

That's not what you were saying. You were saying that, because we didn't know "who designed the designer", then we can dismiss that there was an intelligent entity that created the universe. That you cannot do. You shouldn't even be bringing up "who designed the designer" now until we have some "certainty" that there was one.

 

I didn't say that "we can dismiss an answer." I said that "I" am dismissing the suggestion which is pretending to be an answer.

 

See your quote above. You are "dismissing its existence". However, the suggestion is an answer to the question: "why does the universe exist?" That we have a new question doesn't invalidate the proposal as an answer to the question posed.

 

It's not science as neither you nor anybody else has defined this "designer" in a consistent testable manner.

 

With respect, IDers have defined the "designer" in a testable manner in regard to direct manufacure of living organisms. Defined it so well that ID has been tested and falsified.

 

In this discussion of origin of the universe, the "intelligent entity" has been defined sufficiently well to be testable if we could do the tests. But we are unable to do the tests. Look at it this way, if Ekpyrotic Theory is correct, it would falsify the theory that the universe was directly created by an intelligent entity.

 

Okay. When did anyone demonstrate the existence of an intelligent entity? That's been my point this whole time. I personally find it to be a tremendous waste of time since the existence itself is highly questionable.

 

When has anyone demonstrated the existence of tachyons, strings, quantized space, or a number of entities science is/has worked with? That's the problem, iNow. You are using Special Pleading. What you are saying is that science is doing a "tremendous waste of time" on all these entities since the existence is questionable.

 

On a more fundamental level, all scientific theories are proposed initially without demonstrating the existence first! In fact, that's why we propose entities, to test them to see if they exist!

 

"I thought that scientific theories were not the digest of observations, but that they were inventions -- conjectures boldly put forward for trial, to be eliminated if they clashed with observations, with observations which were rarely accidental but as a rule undertaken with the definite intention of testing a theory by obtaining, if possible, a decisive refutation." Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, 1963 p 38.

 

If we make science work the way you say, then we have to stop doing science!

 

Don't you mean that you "think" we are going to find an uncaused cause sometime? If not, then let's see your sources for this statement of certainty. Let's be consistent with ourselves, shall we?

 

It's a product of logic and there are many papers discussing what is called First Cause. Trace the chain of cause and effect back long enough and you must come eventually to an uncaused Cause that started it. See Hawking's A Brief History of Time. Often First Cause has been stated as an apologetic argument for the existence of God, but the objections have been to First Cause having to be God, not that there is a First Cause.

 

BTW, I notice that you demand citations from me, but haven't provided citations when I asked for them. You aren't consistent with yourself, are you?

 

Actually, that whole comment is bullshit, since I never argued nonexistence.

 

See first statement of your post. Yes, you are arguing nonexistence -- "dismissing its existence".

 

I stated that positing a designer doesn't answer any questions, but displaces them.

 

And I showed how this is a strawman and Special Pleading. And intelligent entity creating the universe answers the question "what's the origin of the universe?" That we now have a new question "what's the origin of the intelligent entity?" doesn't change that we have an answer.

 

Let's take this out of deity and look at ekpyrotic theory. This theory states that our universe was caused by the collision of two 4 D 'branes in a 5 D space. Where did the 5 D space come from? Ekpyrotic doesn't answer that. By your criteria, we must dismiss ekpyrotic becuase it "displaces" the questions. I'm saying your criteria are wrong.

 

You want me to provide evidence of human created deities? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology

 

I want you to provide peer-reviewed scientific papers that deity itself is human created. Wiki is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper. You are also confusing "shared belief" with scientific evidence. Yes, you and I share a belief that Zeus doesn't exist, but where is the scientific paper that does so?

 

Humans created the idea of deity.

 

No, that isn't what you are claiming. Humans created the idea of entropy, atoms, forces, etc. You are claiming that the idea of deity has no basis in objective reality. That's what you need the peer-reviewed scientific papers for.

 

Evidence outside of science is not evidence at all, precisely because you are asking to limit this to a scientific discussion.

 

Your claim was that there was "no evidence". That claim is false. Evidence outside science is indeed evidence. It's not scientific evidence. But science deals only with a small subset of evidence -- intersubjective.

 

And yes, I do reject that "the sun and the stars and clouds are evidence of a creator." I also reject that my refrigerator, my television, and my toaster oven are evidence of leprechauns.

 

OK, first state why you reject the second. Then we can look at how you arrived at that conclusion. Of course, I never stated that "the sun and the stars and clouds are evidence of a creator." I only stated that the existence of the universe and the order it has provides the basis of the hypothesis that the universe was directly created by an intelligent entity.

 

You are now equivocating... AGAIN... about what constitutes evidence. You admitted above that this so called "evidence" is outside science, while simultaneously arguing that this is a scientific question. It's not evidence if it's not scientific, and this is by your own standards.

 

First, I never said evidence wasn't evidence if it wasn't scientific. That's your standard. I simply asked you to post the peer-reviewed scientific articles backing your claim that deity is only human created and not objectively real. You couldn't do that. You are now trying to cover the lapse.

 

You responded that theists have decided that some versions of deity are wrong. So, you have to ask yourself: how did they do that? and why didn't they conclude that ALL versions of deity were wrong?

 

As I've said before, science limits itself to only a subset of evidence. When you say "there is no evidence" you aren't limiting yourself to that subset. You are stating that in the broader set of evidence, there is none.

 

We also have two separate issues here.

1. It is a scientific hypothesis that an intelligent entity directly created the universe and chose its order. As Popper noted (above), you don't need evidence to propose a scientific hypothesis.

2. Is there evidence for the existence of deity (intelligent entity)? Yes. There is evidence. The evidence theists have for the existence of deity is outside science because it is not intersubjective.

 

The inspiration for a hypothesis/theory can come from anywhere. Gould says he was partly inspired by Marxism to propose punctuated equilibrium. Darwin was inspired by Malthusian economics to hypothesize natural selection. I personally know one scientist that was inspired by a hypothetical invasion of aliens to hypothesize why removal of neuraminic acids from glycoproteins would route them to lysosomes. Now, we know that Marxism is a failed system, but that doesn't mean PE is wrong. There is no evidence of an alien invasion, but it turns out the hypothesis is correct.

 

So, wherever the concept of deity came from -- inside or outside science -- the hypothesis of direct action by deity in getting the universe to begin with becomes a scientific hypothesis. It's one, like ekpyrotic or No Boundary, that we can't test right now. But inability to test doesn't remove the hypothesis from science.

 

How is pointing out a logical fallacy in the position of those who posit a creator, and sincerely stating that I personally dismiss their conjecture the same thing as "attempting to change what science is and how it works?"

 

I've walked you thru the "how". Go back and reread my post. If you have a specific question about a part of the argument you don't understand, then you can ask it. But there is no need to repeat all the arguments again unless and until you have a specific question.

 

All of those research arenas are trying to describe something which we know exists and what can be tested.

 

We don't know strings and quantized space exists. We don't know that a universe before this one existed. Bojowald's Loop Quantum Cosmology can't be tested. Neither can Hawking's No Boundary.

 

positing something which is ill defined, based purely on conjecture, and untestable by definition.

 

"species" is ill-defined, but that doesn't stop us from using the concept. As Popper noted, nearly all scientific theories are based "purely on conjecture" to start with, and, in this case, the hypothesis is not "untestable by definition". I already noted one test that would falsify that the universe was directy created by an intelligent entity: the gravity waves associated with ekpyrotic theory.

 

Apples and oranges. Trying to describe the volume of a container on your desk is NOT the same thing as trying to describe the mass of an invisible pink unicorn.

 

Talk about apples and oranges! We aren't talking about "the volume of a container on your desk"! We are talking invisble strings and imaginary time. What's the mass of a string?

 

Since when was gravity not been demonstrated to exist?

 

You either don't know what those theories are or are trying to blow smoke. Loop Quantum Gravity isn't about gravity, it's about space coming in small, quantized pieces. Since when has that been demonstrated? String theory doesn't talk about atomic interaction, but rather about all matter/energy consisting of strings and 'branes. Since when have they been demonstrated? Both of those theories lie in the "Possible" column, along with tachyons and an intelligent entity directly causing the universe.

 

The difference is that the effects in your examples are supportable with hard evidence and real world scientific tests.

 

Find me a test of No Boundary. Find me a test of tachyons. Sorry, iNow, the "hard evidence and real world scientific tests" don't exist.

 

And since when is religious discussion about deities allowed at this forum?

 

We aren't doing religious discussion. We are talking about a scientific hypothesis that has not been falsified. And we are talking about religious arguments against deities that warp and misuse science.

Edited April 20, 2009 by lucaspa

[Daecon]

Exactly right! Science disproves entities. What we can't disprove remains on the table as a possibility. We can't "dismiss its existence". You and I can make a personal decision to believe it doesn't exist, but we can't, speaking for science, dismiss its existence.

Never play leapfrog with an invisible pink unicorn.

 

As someone involved with a science forum, you should know better.

 

:doh:

[iNow]

Exactly right! Science disproves entities. What we can't disprove remains on the table as a possibility. We can't "dismiss its existence". You and I can make a personal decision to believe it doesn't exist, but we can't, speaking for science, dismiss its existence.

I was speaking for myself all along. I never said it was proven not to exist. I said that I dismiss deity for the same reason I dismiss the tooth fairy.

 

You continue to argue against points I never made.

 

 

 

 

That's not what you were saying. You were saying that, because we didn't know "who designed the designer", then we can dismiss that there was an intelligent entity that created the universe.

Again, bullshit. That's not what I was saying at all.

 

Let me ask you. Who do you think is better able to ascertain what I meant by MY words? You or me?

 

 

How ridiculous can this thread get? You're trying to tell me what I meant, when I know perfectly damned well what I meant, and have since clarified it numerous times.

 

 

You shouldn't even be bringing up "who designed the designer" now until we have some "certainty" that there was one.

WHICH WAS EXACTLY MY POINT!! How many times are you going to ask me to repeat this?

 

Are you even reading my posts, or did you automatically launch into your canned arguments against atheists?

 

 

 

With respect, IDers have defined the "designer" in a testable manner in regard to direct manufacure of living organisms. Defined it so well that ID has been tested and falsified.

Funny that.

 

 

In this discussion of origin of the universe, the "intelligent entity" has been defined sufficiently well to be testable if we could do the tests.

I'll concede here that you likely know more on this particular topic than myself. What tests are those that we could run, but are just unable?

 

 

 

When has anyone demonstrated the existence of tachyons, strings, quantized space, or a number of entities science is/has worked with? That's the problem, iNow. You are using Special Pleading. What you are saying is that science is doing a "tremendous waste of time" on all these entities since the existence is questionable.

There's a difference, in my mind at least, since tachyons are based on existing and well supported theories, not on conjecture alone.

 

Either way, let's just say I think it's a waste of time, just like discussing which chemicals make unicorns different colors.

 

 

If we make science work the way you say, then we have to stop doing science!

This has yet to be a scientific thread, so your arguments are baseless. I agree with the heart of science and its importance. I simply assert that this is not (at least yet) science... Not what's being discussed here in this thread in the P&S forum anyway.

 

 

 

It's a product of logic and there are many papers discussing what is called First Cause. Trace the chain of cause and effect back long enough and you must come eventually to an uncaused Cause that started it.

Not if the universe has always existed. You are positing premises as some absolute that we should all except, but the issue is that there ARE other options.

 

Also, your comment about Stephen Hawking is an obvious appeal to authority, so I'll just ignore that.

 

 

 

BTW, I notice that you demand citations from me, but haven't provided citations when I asked for them. You aren't consistent with yourself, are you?

You asked me for citations that humans have invented deities. You are right, I found it a laughable request and ignored it. I think most intelligent human beings would agree with me that humans invented Thor, or Apollo, or Zeus, or the countless others lying dead in the graveyard of human mythology. Why you want a reference that these ideas were human inventions is beyond me. I'm not a student in your class, so you can't exactly give me an F, and I frankly don't care enough to respond to your request on that front. I'm already several posts past where I had planned to stop participating in this dumbass thread.

 

 

 

See first statement of your post. Yes, you are arguing nonexistence -- "dismissing its existence".

Nonsense. Saying I dismiss something personally is HARDLY arguing for its nonexistence.

 

 

 

And intelligent entity creating the universe answers the question "what's the origin of the universe?" That we now have a new question "what's the origin of the intelligent entity?" doesn't change that we have an answer.

This is a semantic issue. I refuse to call it an answer since it's not supported. You are calling it an answer, despite it's lack of credibility. That's where we differ on this, and why we are now several posts forward having a ridiculous ****ing back-and-forth.

 

 

 

Your claim was that there was "no evidence". That claim is false. Evidence outside science is indeed evidence. It's not scientific evidence. But science deals only with a small subset of evidence -- intersubjective.

Okey dokey. This is why I hate philosophy so much. You want this to be a scientific discussion. In that context, I stated there is no evidence, and took "scientific evidence" to be implicitly understood. You are now here arguing that, despite your description of this as a "scientific discussion," that we don't need to use "scientific evidence" and that any 'ole definition of evidence will do.

 

You have fun with that. I want no part of it.

 

 

 

 

Screw this... I'm done. I never said my comments were supposed to be some scientific representation, nor am I trying to publish this in a journal, so you're wasting my time... again.

 

 

On another note, I seriously think it's time for you to review this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38001

Edited April 20, 2009 by iNow

[Daecon]

Let's pretend that a designer (or designers) do indeed exist.

 

What does, well, anything tell us about the nature of these designers?

 

If the answer is "absolutely nothing at all" then let's use Occam's Razor to slit the wrists of this notion right now.

[swansont]

Irrelevant. All science does that. What caused the Big Bang? That's displacing the question of origin, isn't it? But does that invalidate that the Big Bang is the origin of our universe? NO!

 

iNow, what you are doing is invalid science. You are trying to use an unanswered question on the next level to invalidate an answer on the level above.

 

 

The problem with this is that ignores the original premise of the intelligent designer, which is that anything that looks designed must have a designer. That is why it's legitimate to ask "Who designed the designer?" Science doesn't require this, so the comparison to the big bang is not apt. Science is not the system claiming that everything must have a cause.