[_ Old Earth _] I'm yet to see a ID supporter explain this.

[Barbarian]

The prime fallacy, of course, is in the premise. Complex things can arise naturally from simple things.

A second fallacy is in assuming God is subject to nature. You may or may not admit God exists, but he is not subject to the rules of this world.

 

[BobRyan]

The prime fallacy, of course, is in the premise. Complex things can arise naturally from simple things.

indeed - that is a fallacy.

It is the "rocks could do this if only they were given enough time and there were enough of them in one place" argument where "rocks" are defined as "dust and gas"

Bob

 

[Patashu]

The prime fallacy, of course, is in the premise. Complex things can arise naturally from simple things.

indeed - that is a fallacy.

It is the "rocks could do this if only they were given enough time and there were enough of them in one place" argument where "rocks" are defined as "dust and gas"

Bob

What modern theory argues precisely this? Cite a source and use exact wording.

I have an inkling of a suspicion that it's just a liiiiiiitttle more complex then you're giving it credit for...

 

[Jayls5]

Oh, so you proved me right. God doesn't apply to the argument, but ALL other things do!

Of course. :-? All other things are created, God is not, so the error is in your premises.

But your argument for humans having been created is their complexity. How does this not lead to the question of why is god not obviously created if he is complex the way humans are. Your answer to the question originally posed in the thread is "How can you know God is not created if god is complex" (Paraphrased) and your answer is God is not created. The logic is almost circular, except that it goes nowhere at all.

My argument was using the premises of ID "theory" to my knowledge. I definitely wasn't asking how people knew God was/wasn't created, so you made an inaccurate paraphrase of what I was saying. Looking back on it though, it didn't really communicate what I was trying to say all that well maybe... so I'll try to elaborate a bit. The purpose was to expose the ID argument and show that either consequence was bad.

Obviously, I'm not trying to say that a natural creature could have "always existed" in my first post where I concluded that they could have come about by "other means." Rather, it was an implied question why God would get a pass from the argument since it met the criteria for ID. In order to grant the pass, we'd have to add more stuff into the premises defining God as being "eternal" and "infinitely complex," which would expose the argument as bunch of bogus tautology. I was arguing on the second page about this very issue, and I even asserted previously in the thread that the ID argument must be circular in order to allow God. I'm sure that individual figured it out, and that's why he hasn't come back and given me the rigorous definition that would inevitably prove me right. That's why in the original premises I rhetorically say that if God can get a pass, why not other complex creatures? It doesn't matter that animals are all proposed to be created; it matters that God is purported to be eternal in the conclusion of an argument that would assert God was otherwise created.

Here, I'll show you from another angle that might make it clearer:

The whole point was that the (ID) argument itself states that anything of a certain degree of complexity (or greater) must have been created by something of greater complexity. In order to allow an eternal (non-created) God as desired by an ID supporter, their premises are negated. At the very least, the argument must be altered and add in the premise "God does not have a creator and contains all/infinite complexity" or "except for something (God) that has infinite complexity." This would make the ID argument circular. So either we have a God that is created by an infinite series of more complex Gods, or we must admit that the ID argument has an implied hidden premise that they avoid stating overtly which would expose the argument for being circular.

So to clarify the conclusion here, either God is created himself by something more complex, or the ID argument is circular and thus invalid. Either way, they lose. Sorry if this had a bit of redundancy, but I figure I'd word it in a few ways just to ensure there wasn't more confusion.

 

[Barbarian]

Bob has given up on arguing against the theory of evolution, and so he invents new theories of his own to refute.

 

[Jayls5]

Bob has given up on arguing against the theory of evolution, and so he invents new theories of his own to refute.

I noticed a while ago, and thankfully I no longer have to read it. I encourage you to join the ranks of those who have him on the ignore list, ;-). It saves you a lot of wasted time, and the threads appear much clearer without inane dribble.

 

[Snidey]

Bob obviously is a strawman artist (and not a good one), but his posts are too good entertainment-wise to have him on ignore.

 

[John]

Bob obviously is a strawman artist (and not a good one), but his posts are too good entertainment-wise to have him on ignore.

Do you ever have anything good to say? Trolling is against the TOS i do believe.

 

[Snidey]

Bob obviously is a strawman artist (and not a good one), but his posts are too good entertainment-wise to have him on ignore.

Do you ever have anything good to say? Trolling is against the TOS i do believe.

I have engaged on topics I find interesting. I don't believe Bob is interested in actual debate, I think he mischaracterizes his opponents to such a large extent that it's not worth arguing with him. I don't believe this is trolling.

 

[Patashu]

Bob obviously is a strawman artist (and not a good one), but his posts are too good entertainment-wise to have him on ignore.

Do you ever have anything good to say? Trolling is against the TOS i do believe.

You can't say you think someone is a troll without becoming a troll yourself?
Am I trolling?

 

[Jayls5]

Back on topic, anyone ready to refute this one?

 

[BobRyan]

I have engaged on topics I find interesting. I don't believe Bob is interested in actual debate, I think he mischaracterizes his opponents to such a large extent that it's not worth arguing with him. I don't believe this is trolling.

That is simply an empty accusation - not a "debate point" -- if you want to debate a topic you have to actually "say something" substantive that "goes to the point" of the discussion.

If you would like to participate in that fashion -- please do.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Back on topic, anyone ready to refute this one?

That is a pretty unique point -- have to admit - I never thought of it as applying here.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The prime fallacy, of course, is in the premise. Complex things can arise naturally from simple things.

indeed - that is a fallacy.

It is the "rocks could do this if only they were given enough time and there were enough of them in one place" argument where "rocks" are defined as "dust and gas"

Bob

What modern theory argues precisely this? Cite a source and use exact wording.

Atheist darwinianISM - "The transformation from molecule to human mind requires a MASSIVE DECREASE in entropy" Isaac Asimov.

Obviously the atheist darwinian position is "of the form" -- ROCKS CAN DO IT given enough of them and given enough time -- if by the term "rocks" we mean "dust and gas".

As Dawkins pointed out in Expelled (go see the movie if you need source and video seeing-is-believing quote) the miracle to go from dust-and-gass to first cell is no bigger to an atheist darwinist believer than the other significant gap-steps imagined by darwinists.

As Colin Patterson said "telling STORIES about how one thing came from another" are STORIES easy enough to tell but they are NOT science.

While the blinders-on solution to this is to "pretend" that only Bible believing Christians NOTICE what these atheist darwinists are saying when what they say is "inconvenient" for atheist darwinists believer.

See - it is far more obvious than you may have hoped.

But if you are interested in the source -- step one is to allow yourself to SEE Dawkins speaking in the movie Expelled.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The whole point was that the (ID) argument itself states that anything of a certain degree of complexity (or greater) must have been created by something of greater complexity. In order to allow an eternal (non-created) God as desired by an ID supporter, their premises are negated. At the very least, the argument must be altered and add in the premise "God does not have a creator and contains all/infinite complexity" or "except for something (God) that has infinite complexity." This would make the ID argument circular.

The is the essence of the nonsensical argument "The painting can't have been designed by some kind of painter because the painter would be even more complex than the painting -- therefore rocks did it" non-argument.

Why is it that these obvious points seem to escapte the atheist darwinist defense -- in almost every discussion?

Bob

 

[jwu]

The is the essence of the nonsensical argument "The painting can't have been designed by some kind of painter because the painter would be even more complex than the painting -- therefore rocks did it" non-argument.

That point fails - because we happen to know for sure that painters do exist.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob obviously is a strawman artist (and not a good one), but his posts are too good entertainment-wise to have him on ignore.

Do you ever have anything good to say? Trolling is against the TOS i do believe.

Indeed - we need to see if there is anyway for the atheist darwinist camp of believers to post "substance" on this -- their own topic.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The is the essence of the nonsensical argument "The painting can't have been designed by some kind of painter because the painter would be even more complex than the painting -- therefore rocks did it" non-argument.

That point fails - because we happen to know for sure that painters do exist.

Nice atheist argument "does a designer exits" -- but in the ID context the issue is not "Designer in a box" the way atheists have hoped to spin the argument. Rather the point is "see a painting and ADMIT that it shows it has been painted EVEN if you don't know the painter".

In the ID argument you have the acacemic freedom to follow the data where it leads - in the atheis religionist argument you start with "there are no painters".

You missed the point of the post. The argument "you can not see a painting or KNOW it is a painting if you suspect painters are more complex than paintings" is purely bogus. The argument has "no logic at all".

It does not matter if you "know where the painter lived" it does not matter that you know the "level of complexity the painter was skilled enough to do" -- a 3 year old "painter" is very different from Picaso -- yet BOTH can paint and BOTH are complex as compared to their paintings.

The dead argument "I can't tell a painting if I do not first know ALL about painters" is simply that -- a dead argument.

the Point remains.

The ID argument is to SEE that design EXISTS it is not about "putting designers in a test tube".

We can SEE the painting "exists" long before we need to worry about it being done by a 9 year old or a Picaso.

The only argument then that is "left" is the very "religionist" argument of atheists that their "god is steady state matter" or their "god is rocks" and their rebuttal that if we want divine infinite innexplicable attributes associated with the Christian God -- then THEY should be able to claim infinite innnexplicable-origin arguments for their god as well.

Point made --

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

Ok, anyone want to address what I said?

 

[jwu]

The is the essence of the nonsensical argument "The painting can't have been designed by some kind of painter because the painter would be even more complex than the painting -- therefore rocks did it" non-argument.

That point fails - because we happen to know for sure that painters do exist.

Nice atheist argument "does a designer exits" -- but in the ID context the issue is not "Designer in a box" the way atheists have hoped to spin the argument. Rather the point is "see a painting and ADMIT that it shows it has been painted EVEN if you don't know the painter".

Not knowing the painter and deducing a painter when no painter has ever been observed are two entirely different things.

In the ID argument you have the acacemic freedom to follow the data where it leads - in the atheis religionist argument you start with "there are no painters".

Science=/=atheism.

You missed the point of the post. The argument "you can not see a painting or KNOW it is a painting if you suspect painters are more complex than paintings" is purely bogus. The argument has "no logic at all".

Of course it hasn't any logic - because you constructed it as a straw man.

The dead argument "I can't tell a painting if I do not first know ALL about painters" is simply that -- a dead argument.

It is sufficient to know that such a thing as "painters" do exist, one does not need to know all details.

The ID argument is to SEE that design EXISTS it is not about "putting designers in a test tube".

Then why aren't cdesign proponentsists fine with "design as produced by evolutionary algorithms"? Why do they even tack the adjective "intelligent" to the designer if it isn't about the actual designer?