The design argument

Originally posted by RJHinds
However, this is the Sprituality Forum and we are allowed to bring up scripture to support our faith. They have nothing other than speculation to support their faith in an undesigned world with undesigned plants and animals.

They are ignorant on purpose and don't want to know the truth on this subject because they don't want there to be a possibility that the designer of the physical world has the right to judge them for their sins.

Failing to see evidence of a designer does not rule out the possibility of being judged for our sins.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you believe that the universe must be designed because it had a beginning.....and you believe it had a beginning because the designer you believe in says it did.


do you see the problem here?

No I believe it had a beginning because if it didn't it would just be nothing
since it would have all winded down to its lowest form over endless time.
The whole universe believes it has a beginning, why do you claim I only
believe it has one because the designer I believe in says so? I do accept His
Word over yours if that is what you are asking or getting at.

You are now the 2nd person who has gotten my beliefs wrong because of
your assumptions instead of asking about them in this thread. Do you see
a problem here?

Originally posted by KellyJay
No I believe it had a beginning because if it didn't it would just be nothing
since it would have all winded down to its lowest form over endless time.
The whole universe believes it has a beginning, why do you claim I only
believe it has one because the designer I believe in says so? I do accept His
Word over yours if that is what you are asking or get ...[text shortened]... se of
your assumptions instead of asking about them in this thread. Do you see
a problem here?

i didnt claim you were the only one who believes it had a beginning.

what assumption did i make?

have you been at the eggnog again?

Originally posted by KellyJay
No I believe it had a beginning because if it didn't it would just be nothing
since it would have all winded down to its lowest form over endless time.
The whole universe believes it has a beginning, why do you claim I only
believe it has one because the designer I believe in says so? I do accept His
Word over yours if that is what you are asking or get ...[text shortened]... se of
your assumptions instead of asking about them in this thread. Do you see
a problem here?

Yes maybe there is a breakdown in communication. If more people get you wrong, maybe it's not one-sided.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i didnt claim you were the only one who believes it had a beginning.

what assumption did i make?

have you been at the eggnog again?

Are you trying to be funny?

Originally posted by JS357
Yes maybe there is a breakdown in communication. If more people get you wrong, maybe it's not one-sided.

I have no doubt it can be me, but when pages after pages are written and
there is never a time I bring up scripture to back my point, and I get I only
have my point of view due to scripture....I don't think the issue is with me.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i didnt claim you were the only one who believes it had a beginning.

what assumption did i make?

have you been at the eggnog again?

"you believe that the universe must be designed because it had a beginning.....and you believe it had a beginning because the designer you believe in says it did. "

The assumption you made was that my beliefs are based on, must be on my
faith about the designer I have. Why else would you write this? It sure
didn't come from my posts since they didn't push this! Since that is the
case I believe your whole point of view has nothing to do with the things I
have been saying, but only on what you think I believe.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have no doubt it can be me, but when pages after pages are written and
there is never a time I bring up scripture to back my point, and I get I only
have my point of view due to scripture....I don't think the issue is with me.

Well, on page 31 or so, you said, "I think it is ID, but I believe it is a matter of faith not science that we all have to go by."

It being a matter of faith, not science?

Originally posted by JS357
Well, on page 31 or so, you said, "I think it is ID, but I believe it is a matter of faith not science that we all have to go by."

It being a matter of faith, not science?

Agreed I believe any time we are speaking about the great distant past it is
all faith! I believe ID'ers like those that reject God both have a starting
point they want all of their evidence to fit. So they both make a great deal
of assumptions based on their beliefs, but dislike saying they are making
a great deal of assumptions based upon their beliefs.

Where I got upset was as I pointed out to you that I have not brought up
any scripture, I have not brought up God in the conversation, and yet when
describing me that was what was thrown up in my face.

Had you just said what you just did, I'd agreed with you and thought not
a thing of it. When I spent a few pages talking about gravity, environment,
chemical combinations and all I got for my trouble is, I only believe this
due to my views on a creator why go on? Nothing I have said matters the
only thing that seems to are people assumptions which have nothing to do
with anything I've been saying or arguing for.

Originally posted by JS357
Well, on page 31 or so, you said, "I think it is ID, but I believe it is a matter of faith not science that we all have to go by."

It being a matter of faith, not science?

Let me be very clear about this, I know without a shadow of doubt I'm going
to treat you badly, not because I want to or think you deserve it either. It
happens when we are both carrying on conversations with several people
on the same topics. I am not trying to say you are less than in any way, I
think of myself as no different than you are in faults and making mistakes.

Originally posted by JS357
Well, on page 31 or so, you said, "I think it is ID, but I believe it is a matter of faith not science that we all have to go by."

It being a matter of faith, not science?

Science gives no clear answer on this matter, so it must be a matter of faith regardless of which side of the matter we choose to accept or reject. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it might really be a duck.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Science gives no clear answer on this matter, so it must be a matter of faith regardless of which side of the matter we choose to accept or reject. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it might really be a duck.

It is the fact that ID is unfalsifiable that leads me to say it is not to be addressed using science. Denial of ID is unfalsifiable, too. The subject is about things that aren't part of the natural world and about whether supernatural things happen. Ever since Galileo, science has been tight-lipped about the supernatural, although individual scientists will spout off now and then.

Originally posted by JS357
It is the fact that ID is unfalsifiable that leads me to say it is not to be addressed using science. Denial of ID is unfalsifiable, too. The subject is about things that aren't part of the natural world and about whether supernatural things happen. Ever since Galileo, science has been tight-lipped about the supernatural, although individual scientists will spout off now and then.

If intelligent design is a fact, then how could it be falsifiable?

Originally posted by RJHinds
If intelligent design is a fact, then how could it be falsifiable?

The principle of falsifiability is that if a statement is false, it will be possible to prove it to be false. It is a principle that science relies upon even if some philosophers of science quibble about it.

If theistic ID is true, the principle still looks at the hypothetical case in which it is false, to see if it's falsity could be proven by science. Doing science requires this.

Theistic ID is unfalsifiable by science because it relies on there being something/someone outside or above the natural world, that we can't do experiments to prove exists. Science does not make statements about such things. That is, science does not help us prove or disprove theistic ID, regardless of whether it is true or false.

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

Originally posted by JS357
The principle of falsifiability is that if a statement is false, it will be possible to prove it to be false. It is a principle that science relies upon even if some philosophers of science quibble about it.

If theistic ID is true, the principle still looks at the hypothetical case in which it is false, to see if it's falsity could be proven by science. Doi ...[text shortened]... ic ID, regardless of whether it is true or false.

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

JS357, if ID is not falsifiable how come so much effort has been advanced to in fact falsify it ?

Would you say, for instance, biologist Ken Miller has not put forth much effort to falsify Intelligent Design ?