Originally posted by sonshipIt would be an interesting argument if you could prove just exactly how simple/complex god is. However, you cannot. We certainly see a correlation between intelligence and complexity in animals, so this should assume this correlation applies everywhere unless given a reason not to.
[quote] This is of course a bad analogy, but even so, an intelligent designer is not immune from this argument. If you are going to argue that something is too complex to form on its own, this argument has to be applied to everything, including the intelligent designer. A being capable of creating everything has to be the most complex thing in existence. So ...[text shortened]... ntinga
[b]Where Richard Dawkins Goes Wrong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCE7LoRAlnA[/b]
Your position is also a special pleading. God gets to circumvent the rules we see everywhere else, and gets to be both infinitely intelligent and infinitely powerful, while also being simple.
Originally posted by sonhouse
And you know that how? God does not consist of many parts?
And you know that how? God does not consist of many parts?
What is "part" of an eternal Spirit transcending matter, space, and time ?
While I contemplate that, you can contemplate this:
Richard Dawkins says that Biology is the study of complexed living things which appear as if they have been designed for a purpose.
Why not they appear that way because they are so designed for a purpose ?
When Dawkins says living things only appear to have been designed for a purpose, isn't he drifting away from science and into his personal philosophical ideas ?
Originally posted by PatNovakScience has already proved that the claim the universe was eternal is false and there goes any physical laws associated with it. The "Big Bang" from a singularity is just a desperate attempt to save the idea of a non-existent evilution. Even a moron does not buy into that.
This argument is a special pleading. You are applying criticisms to the ideas of others, but exempting your own idea from those same criticisms. Why should your particular idea get special status, and get to circumvent the standards that all other ideas are subject to? If special pleading arguments are allowed, then someone else could just as easily claim that the laws of evolution are eternal, and thus your complexity criticism doesn’t apply.
Originally posted by RJHindsThen the person arguing that evolution laws are eternal would just need to, like the religious folks, keep extending that special pleading outward, and say that the laws of evolution exist outside the universe.
Science has already proved that the claim the universe was eternal is false and there goes any physical laws associated with it. The "Big Bang" from a singularity is just a desperate attempt to save the idea of a non-existent evilution. Even a moron does not buy into that.
By the way, nice job ignoring the point of my post and instead attempting to refute a special pleading that I used as an absurd example.
Originally posted by sonshipYou are the one that brought up Dawkins, not sonhouse. Why do you expect him to defend every word the man has uttered?
While I contemplate that, you can contemplate this:
Richard Dawkins says that Biology is the study of complexed living things which appear as if they have been designed for a purpose.
Why not they appear that way because they are so designed for a purpose ?
When Dawkins says living things only appear to have been designed for a purpose, isn't he drifting away from science and into his personal philosophical ideas ?
Originally posted by sonshipI think he means they appear designed.
[b] Richard Dawkins says that Biology is the study of complexed living things which appear as if they have been designed for a purpose.
Why not they appear that way because they are so designed for a purpose ?
[b]
Just like magicians appear to make things disappear.
Just like red and yellow spots appear orange.
Just like stop motion animation appears to be moving.
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59For anything to appear real, there has to be something that is real. Does that make sense? So the appearance of design could be an indication of real design. If so, then the question is who is the designer?
I think he means they appear designed.
Just like magicians appear to make things disappear.
Just like red and yellow spots appear orange.
Just like stop motion animation appears to be moving.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsNot your god, that is for sure. My bet: natural processes that will be found to produce life everywhere there is a halfway benign planet or moon for it to be on.
For anything to appear real, there has to be something that is real. Does that make sense? So the appearance of design could be an indication of real design. If so, then the question is who is the designer?
Your ONLY viable religious stance is that your god made the universe 14 billion years ago just like science found out and set things up so there will be life all over billions of years later.
Science cannot refute that so you have that fall back position.
Other than that, your YEC buddies and you are so full of shyte you would make water brown.
Originally posted by sonshipAll science can say is, they appear to be designed. Going on to say either they are -- or they aren't -- supernaturally designed, is drifting. But merely saying they appear to be designed, is not in itself a denial that they are designed.And you know that how? God does not consist of many parts?
What is "part" of an eternal Spirit transcending matter, space, and time ?
While I contemplate that, you can contemplate this:
Richard Dawkins says that Biology is the study of complexed living things which appear as if they have been designed for a purpose.
Wh ...[text shortened]... for a purpose, isn't he drifting away from science and into his personal philosophical ideas ?
Originally posted by sonhouseIt is much closer to 6 thousand years ago, numbnuts. Physical life has only been created on planet Earth.
Not your god, that is for sure. My bet: natural processes that will be found to produce life everywhere there is a halfway benign planet or moon for it to be on.
Your ONLY viable religious stance is that your god made the universe 14 billion years ago just like science found out and set things up so there will be life all over billions of years later.
...[text shortened]... n.
Other than that, your YEC buddies and you are so full of shyte you would make water brown.
Originally posted by JS357So do you think Dawkins is now coming back to his senses?
All science can say is, they appear to be designed. Going on to say either they are -- or they aren't -- supernaturally designed, is drifting. But merely saying they appear to be designed, is not in itself a denial that they are designed.