Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Philosophy and God » Its not justified to claim ignorance. Limited causal alternatives for origins do not justify to claim of " not knowing "

Its not justified to claim ignorance. Limited causal alternatives for origins do not justify to claim of " not knowing "

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Admin


Admin
Limited causal alternatives  do not justify to claim of " not knowing "

http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1810-its-not-justified-to-claim-ignorance-limited-causal-alternatives-for-origins-do-not-justify-to-claim-of-not-knowing

Lets suppose the origin of phenomenon X could be explained in three ways. The first explanation demonstrates not to be possible on rational grounds. The second one on philosophical and scientific grounds. Only the third answer is logically, and rationally possible. When asked, which of the three answers is most likely true, would you say: I don't know, or : Based on rational, philosophical, and scientific considerations, Option three is most likely true ?  

Phenomenon X is the Universe, which most probably had a beginning. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause. The universe had a beginning, therefore, must have had a cause. The first explanation is that nothing caused the universe into being. It is evident that something cannot come out of nothing. Even the great skeptic David Hume admitted that he never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something might come into existence without a cause. The second option is that the universe was never created , but must have existed eternally, without a beginning. But If the universe was eternal, all the heat energy would have been utilized an infinite amount of time ago.  If this is true then we should currently be at heat death.  All the energy should have been used up an eternity ago. Since energy exists today we can conclude the universe is not eternal.  If the universe is not eternal, it must have had a beginning. Both the big bang and 2nd law of thermodynamics refute an eternal universe. On philosophical grounds, we realize that we can never get to an infinite period of time in the future by adding individual events together. 2  But today, this point of time in the present, is a point of time future to all past.  Correct?  In other words, we are future to yesterday, and the day before that.  Now, some have suggested that the universe is eternal.  That it has existed forever.  But it is not possible that it has existed forever.  Here is the application.  This point in time is actually future with reference to all of the past.  We just agreed that you cannot say that any particular point in the future will accomplish an actual infinite as events are added one to another.  Therefore, this present moment in time can't represent an actual infinite number of events added one to another proceeding from the past.  Time has proceeded forward from the past as one event is added onto another to get us to today.  But we know that whenever you pause in the count as we've done today, that you can't have an infinite number of events.

1. Contingent or non-necessary beings depend on an external cause that made them come into existence - the physical universe – is also contingent.
2. Since that external cause has to be outside the whole aggregate of contingent things, it cannot itself be contingent. So it is necessary.
3. Hey presto, we’ve demonstrated that there is a necessarily existent, uncreated, non-contingent being which causes all other things! And this, of course, is God.


Hence, the claim that it is justified to claim ignorance is invalid. 

Claim: We replace God with honesty by saying "we don't know". The fact that we don't currently know does not mean we will never know because we have science, the best method we have for answering questions about things we don't know. Simply saying "God did it" is making up an answer because we are too lazy to try to figure out the real truth. Science still can't explain where life came from and is honest about it.
No atheist believes "the universe came from nothing". Science doesn't even wastes it's time trying to study what came before the big bang and creation of the universe (based on the first law of the thermodynamics, many think matter and energy are atemporal, and before the Big Bang, everything was a singularity, but  very few people are interested in studying that because it won't change anything in our knowledge about the universe).

Atheists simply admit the obvious: We don't know, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. We live our lives enjoying the moment, enjoying art, enjoying other people, we don't need somebody to tell us what is our purpose. We don't know what triggered the Big Bang and why the universe was created, but we look for meaning for it through scientific method, and not blindly believing made-up tales written by fishermen that used to live 2000 years ago.

It's hard to explain because honesty and humbleness is something somebody like you can't understand. You are too arrogant to admit you don't know something, you must believe made-up stories because you failed to find a reason to live other than serving an imaginary godlike being, and your entire world would collapse if you lost that belief. You are so blind that you even need to make up beliefs for other people, and furiously attack viewpoints that don't exist.

Answer: 
Atheists, rather than admit a creator as the only rational response to explain our existence, prefer to confess ignorance despite the wealth of scientific information, that permits to reach informed conclusions. 

John Lennox:
There are not many options. Essentially, just two. Either human intelligence owes its origin to mindless matter, or there is a Creator. It's strange that some people claim that all it is their intelligence that leads to prefer the first to the second.

Luke A. Barnes:
“I don’t know which one of these two statements is true” is a very different state of knowledge from “I don’t know which one of these trillion statements is true”. Our probabilities can and should reflect the size of the set of possibilities.


It is not justified to say " We don't know". It is suppressing the obvious inference that:
the universe had a beginning, therefore a cause
the physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent and irreducible, therefore they had to be created all at once. 
The fundamental physical constants, the universe, and the earth are finely tuned for life. Over 100 constants must be just right. Therefore, a fine-tuner is required. 
Life comes only from non-life. Abiogenesis has never been demonstrated to be possible. Eliminative induction permits to posit a Creator as the best explanation of the origin of life. 
Biological cells ARE an industrial park of millions of interconnected complex factories, full of machines. Factories are always designed.
Biological cells require a minimal number of parts, which have no use by themselves, and would never accumulate on a prebiotic earth
Biological systems appear designed. Therefore, most probably, they are designed. 
DNA stores the blueprint of life. Blueprints can always be tracked back to intelligence
The Fossil record, and in special the Cambrian explosion, demonstrates the sudden appearance of lifeforms, without intermediates. 
Conscience, mental reality, language, logic, free will, moral values, are immaterial entities, and cannot emerge from matter
Both lead to an eternal, self-existent, omnipresent transcendent, conscious, intelligent, personal and moral Creator.
The Old Testament is a catalogue of fulfilled prophecies of Jesus Christ, and his mission, death, and resurrection foretold with specificity.
Archaeology demonstrates that all events described in the Bible are historical facts. 
Historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth, and really did physically rise from the dead
There are many testimonies of Jesus doing miracles still today, and Jesus appearing to people all over the globe, still today.
The signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are occurring in front of our eyes. New world order, microchip implant etc.
Credible witnesses have seen the afterlife and have come back and reported to us that the afterlife is real.
Nothing cannot produce everything
Chaos cannot produce order
Non-reason produced reason 

Either there is a God - creator - causal agency of the universe, or not. God either exists or he doesn’t, and there is no halfway house. These are these two possible explanations. Upon the logic of mutual exclusion, they are mutually exclusive (it was one or the other) so we can use eliminative logic: if no God is highly improbable, then the existence of God is highly probable. Now here's the trick. When faced with limited options you don't have the liberty not to believe something. If you reject the idea that somebody baked the cake for you, you must assert in its place that the cake either materialized out of nothing or formed itself by accident. When you reject one option you are asserting an alternate option when all the options are clear. When we are faced with just a limited number of choices if we reject one choice we've got to opt for one of those that remains. So the question is, which option makes the most sense? Thus, the evidence against the existence of God is evidence of God. is evidence for creation.  The evaluative status of non-design (and thus design) can be decreased or increased by observable empirical evidence, so a theory of design is empirically responsive and is testable. When we are faced with just a limited number of choices if we reject one choice we've got to opt for one of those that remain. So the question is, which option makes the most sense? While the honest thing is to say, I don't know, at the beginning of a journey of research which worldview makes the most sense, it's dishonest to say that God cannot be known, and indeed, egotistical to claim to remain in ignorance, when the opportunity to know is readily available.  If you are undecided, then that's fine too. But the reason that you are undecided is not a lack of evidence on either side...it's your own unwillingness to make a decision and support a position.

No known third option exists. Claiming that " We don't know " is a third option is a logical fallacy. Ignorance is not an explanation of causality, but an admission of ignorance. We aim to explore and evaluate both hypotheses. Both possible causal mechanisms of origins, intelligent and mental, and natural ( non-intelligent ) causation can be scrutinized, tested, elucidated and analyzed, in order to find the best, case-adequate answers of origins.  To say, that just two worldviews exist, then it means that theism does not restrict itself to the supernatural, but in a broader sense, it is an umbrella name that englobes all views where a superior being equipped with intelligence and conscience is inferred. Pantheism is in that broader sense, a form of theism.

As far as the existence of the universe goes, it was either created or it was not created (that is the logical axiom called the Law of the Excluded Middle). If God as a causal agent is excluded, the only two alternatives to explain the origin of the universe are either an eternal universe in some form, or it came into existence without a cause. Both alternatives are impossible. We cannot reach now by successive additions of past events from no starting point. Nothing is the absence of anything and has no causal powers.   Atheists escape of not knowing is as claiming ignorance of how much is 0 + 0. 


Paul Davies:
The universe obeys mathematical laws; they are like a hidden subtext in nature. Science reveals that there is a coherent scheme of things, but scientists do not necessarily interpret that as evidence for meaning or purpose in the universe. The only rational explanation is however that God created this coherent scheme of things since there is no other alternative reasonable explanation. That's why atheists rather than admit that, prefer to argue of " not knowing " of its cause. 

1. Contingent or non-necessary beings depend on an external cause that made them come into existence - the physical universe – is also contingent.
2. Since that external cause has to be outside the whole aggregate of contingent things, it cannot itself be contingent. So it is necessary.
3. Hey presto, we’ve demonstrated that there is a necessarily existent, uncreated, non-contingent being which causes all other things! And this, of course, is God.

1. The universe is either eternal, or it had a beginning. Most probably it had a beginning, based on philosophical and scientific considerations. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
2. The Universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

In regards of Abiogenesis: A common answer is: Science does not know yet. And what cannot yet be explained, is postponed to " science is working on it". What we are constantly being accused of doing ( unjustly ), namely of using a God of the Gaps argument, is what agnostics use to fill the gaps with naturalism. 

1. DNA stores information based on a code system, and codified, complex, instructional information, with the same function as a blueprint.  
2. All codes and blueprints come from intelligence.
3. Therefore, the genetic code and the instructions to build cells and complex biological organisms, stored in DNA, were most likely created by an intelligent agency.

1. Cells use sophisticated information selection ( the Gene regulatory network ) encoding and transcription ( DNA & RNA polymerase machines ) transmission (mRNA), and decoding ( Ribosome ) systems.
2. Setup of information transmission systems, aka.  Selection, encoding, transmission, and decoding are always a deliberate act of intelligence
3. The existence of the genetic information transmission system is best explained by the implementation of an intelligent designer.    

1. Complex machines and factories are intelligently designed
2. Biological cells are factories full of complex machines
3. Biological cells are intelligently designed...

1. Cells components are part of a complex system that is useful only in the completion of that much larger system. A minimal Cell, in order to make life possible, requires at least 500 interdependent protein - molecular machine complexes fully functional. Basic building blocks and Intermediate biosynthesis products do have no biochemical function on their own, that's why evolution could and would not select them.
2. A discrete minimal size of each individual molecular machine, aka. proteins and holo-protein complexes made of multiple subunits and cofactors are necessary for these to be functional.
3. Each protein and holo-protein requires a minimal size and complexity to be functional. And it has only function interdependently, and correct precise energy supply, and when interconnected with other molecules in the Cell. Irreducibility and interdependence cannot evolve but depend on intelligence with foreknowledge on how to build discrete parts with a distant goal.

Either life was created, or it emerged through self-organization by natural, unguided, random events. Physical laws or necessity cannot be the driving force of the origin of the genetic code and the genetic information for the first living being. The simplest known free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium, has 470 genes that code for 470 proteins that average 347 amino acids in length. The odds against just one specified protein of that length to emerge randomly are 1:10^451. According to Borel's law, any occurrence with a chance of happening less than in one out of 10^50 is an occurrence with such a slim a probability that is, in general, statistically considered to be zero.



The standard crutches and claim are that evolution is a fact, and has been observed, and as such, the quest of origins is a settled issue, evolution replaces a creator, and that settles the issue for most. 



In the same manner, as I use my mind and intelligence to make a blueprint of a factory, a mind is required to make the blueprint of life. In the same sense, as a piston has no function by its own, an enzyme in a prebiotic soup or hydrothermal vent would have no function on its own.

A piston has no use if not installed in the cylinder of the engine, and the engine is fully functional. Similarly, a protein has no function if not installed in the cell in the proper location, and the cell is fully functional. So why would a prebiotic soup, or hydrothermal vents, produce proteins that have no purpose by their own? A factory with machines, production lines, computers, software/hardware, waste bins, recycle devices, quality check , control and repair, communication lines, and internal delivery mechanisms etc.,  always has an inventor.  The building instructions for a factory or machine always have an intelligent origin. Biological cells are factories, full of machines, computers, and building instructions, stored in DNA. Abiogenesis is impossible. Life can only come from life.

Biological systems are functionally organized, integrated into an interdependent network, and complex, like human-made machines and factories. The wiring or circuit board of an electrical device equals to the metabolic pathways of a biological cell. For the assembly of a biological system of multiple parts, not only the origin of the genome information to produce all proteins/enzymes with their respective subunits and assembly cofactors must be explained, but also parts availability ( The right materials must be transported to the building site. Often these materials in their raw form are unusable. Other complex machines come into play to transform the raw materials into a usable form.  All this requires specific information. )  synchronization, ( these parts must be read on hand at the building site )  manufacturing and assembly coordination ( which required the information of how to assemble each single part correctly, at the right place, at the right moment, and in the right position ) , and interface compatibility ( the parts must fit together correctly, like lock and key ) . Unless the origin of all these steps is properly explained, functional complexity as existing in biological systems has not been addressed adequately.

How could the whole process have started " off the hooks " from zero without a planning intelligence?
Why would natural, unguided mechanisms produce a series of enzymes that only generate useless intermediates until all of the enzymes needed for the end product exist, are in place and do their job?
My conclusion is: The origin of biological cells, and life,  can only be explained by the acting agency of an intelligent mind.

Resumed: For the assembly of a biological system of multiple parts, following steps must be explained: the origin of the genome information to produce all subunits and assembly cofactors. Parts availability, synchronization, manufacturing and assembly coordination through genetic information, and interface compatibility. The individual parts must precisely fit together. All these steps are better explained through a super intelligent and powerful designer, rather than mindless natural processes by chance, or/and evolution since we observe all the time minds capabilities producing machines and factories, producing machines and end products.

Everything *has* to be in place at once or else an organism has no survival advantage. The thing is, there's no driver for any of the pieces to evolve individually because single parts confer no advantage in and of themselves. The necessity for the parts of the system to be in place all at once is simply evidence of creation. Photosynthesis missing one piece (like chlorophylls) is like a car missing just one piece of the drive train (such as a differential); it's not that it doesn't function as well - it doesn't function at all!

So we can by simple reason conclude that a creative agency is the best explanation for our existence. The ONLY, unique, exclusive, possible, rational, obvious mechanism and cause of the physical universe and life is GOD. Atheists often excuse of " not knowing " is, because there is no other mechanism. So claims of not being able to conclude what makes the most sense is not an honest position, but wilful unjustified irrational untenable ignorance at its best.

When you see a factory production line, a complex machine, a computer, a message, a translation dictionary, a watch, do you intuitively conclude somebody made it? Yes, of course.
Would you say that it is plausible that a tornado over a junkyard could produce a self-replicating machine, like John von Neumann's Universal Constructor?
Would you say that it is plausible that mindless random chance can write a book like a random letter generator using a computers number generator? if you see a message on a sand dune, like " John loves Sandy ". Would you intuitively and immediately recognize that someone past there a short time ago, and wrote the message on the sand dune? Or would you be unable to recognize that intelligence was required to write the message? The universe, the cell, and organisms are far more complex than the most complex machines made by man, and the simplest cell stores as much information as contained in a CD.

There are only these options.  Either is there an intelligent creator, or there is not. Those are the only options.  If there is no God, then everything is a result of ..... what exactly?
Chance, as exposed above, isn't a thing. Physical necessity could only act once a physical universe exists. Beyond the universe, there were no physical laws.

Once it granted that nothing has no causal powers, it's evident the universe could not have emerged from absolutely anything. Nobody times nothing equals everything is irrational to the extreme ( nonetheless, some very "smart" people think that proposition makes sense, and write extensive books about the subject ). Or, behind this complex universe is an incomprehensibly intelligent and powerful eternal being who made everything.

The capacity of atheists to invert things is remarkable. They claim to not being able to know what can be known and understood easily. And claim to know what nobody really knows for sure.
They claim to not being able to know how the universe and life might have emerged and what mechanism was most probably in play, based on the evidence. And on top of that, argue that this is the most honest position someone can take. But they are absolutely certain of common ancestry, and that microevolution leads to macroevolution and biodiversity during long periods of time. That - they claim, is an unquestionable fact.
The inversion is evident. Based on logic and reasoning, and the scientific evidence, we can infer with certainty that a causal agent was required to create all physical things, the universe, life, and biodiversity.
But in regard to chemistry, biochemistry, biology, evolutionary and ecological mechanisms, we know that things are EXTRAORDINARILY COMPLEX, cannot be easily known and understood. And in fact, many things, we still don't know. But atheists think they do. The proponent of evolution believes that a theory from the 19th century is right, despite the fact that back then, knowledge in biology was limited, and that its rather simplistic explanation through mutations and natural selection is supposedly able to account for all biodiversity, bacterias, plants, fish, birds, apes, humans, body plan development, histology, and cell differentiation, the origin of pluripotent stem cells, and the enormous complex modifications observed in living beings , which are able to adapt to the environment. Be aware of all these ultracrepidarianists. If you do not agree with them, they call you a pigeon playing chess, Dunning-Kruger and alike, but never really look into the mirror to see who is in front of them !!

5 Easy Steps to refute naturalism
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1877-easy-steps-to-refute-naturalism

Either the cosmos 
(1) had no beginning, or 
(2) it had a beginning. 
(1) If the cosmos had no beginning, then there must be an infinite series of past events. However, it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite. Therefore, the universe cannot be infinitely old. Besides that, If the cosmos was infinitely old, it would have reached maximum entropy a long, long, time ago. Since it has not reached maximum entropy, it cannot be infinitely old without violating the second law of thermodynamics.
(2) If the cosmos had a beginning, then it must have come from (A) nothing or (B) something. 
2.A. Although physicists such as Krauss and Hawking talk about "the universe creating itself from nothing," they are using the word "nothing" to mean the vacuum energy, which is not a true nothing. To be more precise, being cannot emerge from non-being. That would violate the first law of thermodynamics: energy can be neither created or destroyed; it can only change form. So the cosmos did not emerge from non-being.
2.B. If the entire cosmos came from something, that thing must transcend our cosmos, that is, it must exist beyond the limits of our space/time continuum. It must also possess more energy (power) than the total energy within our cosmos. We may call it the First Cause.

Fine-tuning of the universe
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1277-fine-tuning-of-the-universe

1. If our universe is random, then it is very unlikely that it permits life.
2. Our universe permits life.
3. Therefore, the existence of our universe is very likely due to something other than chance.

“The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly. You see,” Davies adds, “even if you dismiss the man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life — almost contrived — you might say a ‘put-up job’.”
Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University

Abiogenesis is impossible
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1279-abiogenesis-is-impossible

The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution, Eugene V. Koonin, page 351: 
The origin of life is the most difficult problem that faces evolutionary biology and, arguably, biology in general. Indeed, the problem is so hard and the current state of the art seems so frustrating that some researchers prefer to dismiss the entire issue as being outside the scientific domain altogether, on the grounds that unique events are not conducive to scientific study.

Would you say that it is plausible that a tornado over a junkyard could produce a self-replicating machine, like John von Neumann's Universal Constructor?
Would you say that it is plausible that mindless random chance can write a book?

Objection: Marcello Barbieri writes: Comparing living cells to man-made self-replicating machines, and books is a false analogy
Answer: Molecular biology has proved that there is a genetic code in every cell and that genes and proteins are molecular artifacts because they are manufactured by molecular machines. Coding and artifact-making, in other words, take place both in our society and inside the cell, and this does create a parallel between culture and molecular biology. Code Biology A New Science of Life, page 28
In other words. Intelligence produces self-replicating machines and books. And so only intelligence can produce life, that depends on coded information, proteins, and molecular machines. 

If the analogy of two phenomena are very close and striking while at the same time, the cause of ONE of the phenomenon is very obvious; it becomes scarcely possible to refuse to admit the action of an analogous cause of the other phenomenon, though (the cause of the other phenomenon is) not so obvious in itself"
--- in "Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy", London, Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green, 1831, page 149.

When you see that:
the way genetic information encoded in the DNA is exactly the same as what we humans would do to encode information in our books, computers, etc;
the way that the nucleus communicates with its ribosome is similar to how we humans has designed computers to communicate with one another,
then one has to AT LEAST stop and wonder whether some intelligent being has designed the genetic code and made the communication system between the nucleus and its ribosomes.... 
Perry Marshall, Evolution 2.0, 1

Although this is not a conclusive proof of the existence of God, it should AT LEAST make one STOP and THINK about the possibility of the existence of God....

In regard to origins, either there was a causal agent, or there was not. It's not sufficient to say: I don't believe in God and think this is a solid epistemological framework. All possible mechanisms of origins need a serious consideration, including design. The question: What would have to be observed in the natural world to detect design ? is essential.
Abiogenesis, Dawkins blind watchmaker hypothesis, and common ancestry is all based on indirect observations. That is, from today's observed evidence, past causal action is inferred, similar to a detective getting his conclusions on a crime scene from the evidence on the crime scene. To do so, it must be established what could be recognized as a designed structure and patterns of intelligent interference. 

In the design revolution, Dembski writes on page 220: 
So see that the argument from ignorance objection is not a magic wand for silencing intelligent design, let's begin with a reality check. When is the argument from ignorance objection raised against intelligent design, who exactly is being accused of being ignorant? Its natural to think that the ignorance here is on the part of design theorists, who want to attribute intelligent agency to biological systems. If only those poor design theorists understood biology better, those systems would readily submit to mechanistic explanation. Matter of fact IMHO is, that despite decades of research, the scientific community has been desperately and unsuccessfully tried to discover how such systems could have formed, what mechanism exactly was in charge. Who is ignorant here? The Scientific community as a whole. In fact, it's safe to say that the biological community is clueless about the emergence of biological complexity. How so?

Because the material mechanisms to which the biological community looks to explain biological complexity provide no clue for how those systems might realistically have come about. the problem, therefore, is not ignorance or personal incredulity, but global disciplinary failure, and gross theoretical inadequacy of Darwin's theory.  James Shapiro, the molecular biologist at the university of Chicago, conceded that system that exhibits specified complexity are likely to be designed. Design theorists, in attributing design to systems that exhibit specified complexity (SC), are simply doing what scientists do generally, which is an attempt to formulate a causally adequate explanation for the phenomenon in question. To attribute specified complexity, and thereby design, to a biological system is to engage in an eliminative induction, a form of reasoning, used throughout the sciences. Eliminative inductions argue for the truth of a proposition by arguing that competitors to that proposition are false.

Pretend you wake up in the morning and there's a birthday cake sitting on your kitchen table, and it just happens to be your birthday. What do you think? You ask yourself, "Where did this cake come from?" There are only a couple of possibilities, theoretically. It could have just materialized out of nowhere on your kitchen table coincidentally on your birthday. It could have just "poofed" into existence. I guess that would be in the realm of theoretic possibilities. Or maybe a great, hot, wet wind blew through your neighbor's kitchen gathering up a bunch of ingredients and kind of accidentally baked a cake that landed on your table. The fact that it happened on your birthday is a coincidence. I guess that would be "possible" too. The cake could have come out of nowhere or could have just assembled itself by chance. Or the other alternative would be that a person baked the cake for you and dropped it off in the middle of the night.

http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201303/201303_026_Athiests.cfm

The Christian Geneticist Francis Collins of Human Genome Project fame said he was an agnostic in college. Yet he confesses that his “I don’t know” was more an “I don’t want to know” attitude — a “willful blindness.”  This agnosticism eventually gave way to outright atheism — although Collins would later come to faith in Christ. He began reading C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, and Collins realized his own antireligious constructs were “those of a schoolboy.”

Because the existence of God is a massively important topic, we cannot afford not to pay attention — especially in an age of so many diversions. Philosopher Tom Morris points out that sports, TV, restaurants, concerts, cars, billiards, and a thousand other activities can divert us from the ultimate issues of life. As a result, we don’t “tune into” God. And when a crisis hits (death, hospitalization, natural disaster), we are not really in the best condition to process and make accurate judgments about those deep questions.  The person who says, “I do not know if God exists,” may have chosen to live by diversions and distractions and thus to ignore God. This is not an innocent ignorance; this ignorance is the result of our neglecting our duty.

So the theist, atheist, and militant (ornery) agnostic all bear a burden of proof; the theist does not have a heavier burden since all claim to know something. Furthermore, even the alleged ordinary agnostic still is not off the hook. For one thing, one cannot remain neutral all his life; he will make commitments or hold beliefs all along the way that reflect either an atheistic or theistic worldview. He is either going to be a practical atheist or practical theist (or a mixture of the two) in some fashion throughout his life. But he can’t straddle the fence for long. Also, the ordinary agnostic may say, “I do not know,” but this often means “I do not care” — the view of an “apatheist.” Refusing to seek out whether God exists or not; refusing to humble oneself to seek whatever light about God is available; living a life of distractions rather than thoughtfully reflecting about one’s meaning, purpose or destiny leaves one culpable in his ignorance, not innocent.

Paul Davies, the fifth miracle: At that time, the very notion that life might spring into being spontaneously from a nonliving chemical mixture was greeted with fierce criticism from theologians, and even from some scientists. The eminent British physicist Lord Kelvin dismissed the whole idea as “a very ancient speculation,” opining that “science brings a vast mass of inductive evidence against this hypothesis.” He stated unequivocally, “Dead matter cannot become living without coming under the influence of matter previously alive.” This left only two alternatives: either life has always existed or its origin was a miracle.

It's not justified to claim " we don't know ", when a limited range of alternatives and options are available. If you assert that there is a god...then ok, let's move on. If you assert that there is no god, then let's lay your evidence and argumentation for that assertion against the evidence and argumentation for the existence of god...and let's get on with it. 



Last edited by Admin on Mon Dec 31, 2018 11:15 am; edited 21 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
The world view of the " i don't know" ists......

I guess it's time to put the foundations of a new church and religion. No, it's not similar to worship Jahwe. Nor Allah. Nor Santa. Nor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Nor the Pink invisible Unicorn ( PIMU ). It's the church of the courageous " I don't know"ists. The new churches name is IGNORANTE, and our Gods name is NON SÓ ! ( i don't know in Italian ). Let's openly celebrate the lack of knowledge. People, you don't need to hide anymore, nor be ashamed. It's gonna be finally official now. It will be the next BIG movement, and if you were afraid until now, you can come out of the closet and declare yourself. If being willingly ignorant was tabu until now, we will unite and stand our man/woman towards the growing challenge of Atheists, Skeptics, Freethinkers, Pantheists, Theists, Deists, and united, be the force. Besides Theism and Naturalism, we will be the third answer to humanities questions of origins and place in the universe. Our official position will be to not know. No, we are not agnostics looking for an answer. I don't know is our final answer and solution. It settles it. It's NOT A SHAME, TO BE HONEST, AND CONFESS IGNORANCE. How can we best explain our origins? We don't know. What options are there, just theism or naturalism? We don't know ". How was the universe finely tuned? No idea. What about the physical laws? How could I possibly know? Was the universe eternal, or had it a beginning? That's not possible to answer. How did life begin? " We don't know". We will start our evangelism campaigns, and challenge every Theist, and drag them down to our delightful ignorance. Our answer stands as the newest, finest, smartest philosophical approach and is undefeatable !! Let them try and they will see !! Become a don't knowist, and intellectual satisfaction guaranteed. Can I inform you my patreon account to start our first flyers campaign??!!

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Limited causal alternatives  do not justify to claim " not knowing "

Claim: We replace God with honesty by saying "we don't know". The fact that we don't currently know does not mean we will never know because we have science, the best method we have for answering questions about things we don't know. Simply saying "God did it" is making up an answer because we are too lazy to try to figure out the real truth.
Answer: There are basically just two options. Either there is a God, or not.  Upon the logic of mutual exclusion, they are mutually exclusive (it was one or the other) so we can use eliminative logic: if no God is highly improbable, then the existence of God is highly probable. Thus, the evidence against the existence of God is evidence of God. is evidence for creation.  The evaluative status of non-design (and thus design) can be decreased or increased by observable empirical evidence, so a theory of design is empirically responsive and is testable.

Do you see that? When you are faced with just a limited number of choices if you reject one choice you've got to opt for one of those that remain. So the question is, which option makes the most sense?

The standard crutches and claim are that evolution is a fact, and has been observed, and that settles the issue for most. And what cannot yet be explained, is postponed to " science is working on it". What we are constantly being accused of doing ( unjustly ), namely of using a God of the Gaps argument, is what they use to fill the gaps with naturalism. Self-delusion is in high demand these days..... Atheists, rather than admit a creator as the only rational response to explain our existence, prefer to confess ignorance despite the wealth of scientific information, that permits to reach informed conclusions.
 
John Lennox:
There are not many options. Essentially, just two. Either human intelligence owes its origin to mindless matter, or there is a Creator. It's strange that some people claim that all it is their intelligence that leads to prefer the first to the second.

As far as the existence of the universe goes, it was either created or it was not created (that is the logical axiom called the Law of the Excluded Middle).

If God as causal agent is excluded, the only two alternatives to explain the origin of the universe are either an eternal universe in some form, or it came into existence without a cause. Both alternatives are impossible. We cannot reach now by successive additions of past events from no starting point. Nothing is the absence of anything and has no causal powers.   Atheists escape of not knowing is as claiming ignorance of how much is 0 + 0. 

Once, evolution is replaced by considering the constraints of the origin of life, things become pretty clear : 

Nobody in its sane mind would defend and advocate that  computers, hardware, software, a language using signs and codes like the alphabet, an instructional blueprint, complex machines, factory assembly lines, error check and repair systems, recycling methods, waste grinders and management, power generating plants, power turbines, and electric circuits could emerge randomly, by unguided, accidental events. That is, however, the ONLY causal alternative, once intelligent planning,  invention, design, and implementation are excluded, to explain the origin of biological Cells, which are literally miniaturized, ultracomplex, molecular, self replicating factories. 

Either life was created, or it emerged through self-organization by natural, unguided, random events. Physical laws or necessity cannot be the driving force of the origin of the genetic code and the genetic information for the first living being. The simplest known free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium, has 470 genes that code for 470 proteins that average 347 amino acids in length. The odds against just one specified protein of that length to emerge randomly are 1:10^451. According to Borel's law, any occurrence with a chance of happening less than in one out of 10^50 is an occurrence with such a slim a probability that is, in general, statistically considered to be zero.

Paul Davies: 
The universe obeys mathematical laws; they are like a hidden subtext in nature. Science reveals that there is a coherent scheme of things, but scientists do not necessarily interpret that as evidence for meaning or purpose in the universe.
The only rational explanation is however that God created this coherent scheme of things since there is no other alternative reasonable explanation. That's why atheists rather than admit that, prefer to argue of " not knowing " of its cause.  

Luke A. Barnes:
“I don’t know which one of these two statements is true” is a very different state of knowledge from “I don’t know which one of these trillion statements is true”. Our probabilities can and should reflect the size of the set of possibilities. 

In the same manner, as I use my mind and intelligence to make a blueprint of a factory, a mind is required to make the blueprint of life. In the same sense, as a piston has no function by its own, an enzyme in a prebiotic soup or hydrothermal vent would have no function on its own.

A piston has no use if not installed in the cylinder of the engine, and the engine is fully functional. Similarly, a protein has no function if not installed in the cell in the proper location, and the cell is fully functional. So why would a prebiotic soup, or hydrothermal vents, produce proteins that have no purpose by their own? A factory with machines, production lines, computers, software/hardware, waste bins, recycle devices, quality check , control and repair, communication lines, and internal delivery mechanisms etc.,  always has an inventor.  The building instructions for a factory or machine always have an intelligent origin. Biological cells are factories, full of machines, computers, and building instructions, stored in DNA. Abiogenesis is impossible. Life can only come from life.

Biological systems are functionally organized, integrated into an interdependent network, and complex, like human-made machines and factories. The wiring or circuit board of an electrical device equals to the metabolic pathways of a biological cell. For the assembly of a biological system of multiple parts, not only the origin of the genome information to produce all proteins/enzymes with their respective subunits and assembly cofactors must be explained, but also parts availability ( The right materials must be transported to the building site. Often these materials in their raw form are unusable. Other complex machines come into play to transform the raw materials into a usable form.  All this requires specific information. )  synchronization, ( these parts must be read on hand at the building site )  manufacturing and assembly coordination ( which required the information of how to assemble each single part correctly, at the right place, at the right moment, and in the right position ) , and interface compatibility ( the parts must fit together correctly, like lock and key ) . Unless the origin of all these steps is properly explained, functional complexity as existing in biological systems has not been addressed adequately.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
I guess it's time to put the foundations of a new church and religion. No, it's not similar to worship Jahwe. Nor Allah. Nor Santa. Nor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Nor the Pink invisible Unicorn ( PIMU ). It's the church of the courageous " I don't know"ists. The new churches name is IGNORANTE, and our Gods name is IDONTKNOW. Let's openly celebrate the lack of knowledge. People, you don't need to hide anymore, nor be ashamed. It's gonna be finally official now. It will be the next BIG movement, and if you were afraid until now, you can come out of the closet and declare yourself. If being willingly ignorant was tabu until now, we will unite and stand our man/woman towards the growing challenge of  Skeptics, Freethinkers, Pantheists, Theists, Deists, and united, be the force. Besides Theism and Naturalism, we will be the third answer to humanities questions of origins and place in the universe. Our official position will be to " not know ". No, we are not agnostics looking for an answer. I don't know is our final answer and solution. It settles it. It's NOT A SHAME, TO BE HONEST, AND CONFESS IGNORANCE. How can we best explain our origins? We don't know. What options are there, just theism or naturalism? We don't know ". How was the universe finely tuned? No idea. What about the physical laws? How could I possibly know? Was the universe eternal, or had it a beginning? That's not possible to answer. How did life begin? " We don't know". Let's celebrate NIHILISM, and refine it to its finest form !! We will start our evangelism campaigns, and challenge every Theist, and drag them down to our delightful ignorance. Our answer stands as the newest, finest, smartest philosophical approach and is undefeatable !! Let them try and they will see !! Become a don't knowist, and intellectual satisfaction guaranteed. Can I inform you my patreon account to start our first flyers campaign??!!

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Answers given in a debate with an agnostic, claiming to be an atheist: 

Limited causal alternatives do not justify to claim of " not knowing "
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1810-its-not-justified-to-claim-ignorance-limited-causal-alternatives-for-origins-do-not-justify-to-claim-of-not-knowing

Personally, as an atheist, I just admit that I don't know for sure exactly how we came in to existence.
I'm not claiming to know Gods existence is not true. I'm just not investing any belief that it is true.
Try to assert that we should accept an answer that it is a God that makes us able to without proving it, is to assert that we should accept a made up answer.
* Thinks that origins is an issue about proving things, and not what makes most sense. 
We simply don't know. Trying to assert we do know, without proof, is simply illogical.
The whole irreducible complexity argument has been debunked. Even if I did admit that we have irreducible complexity, that does nothing to prove how and why we have that. You still need to prove a God claim if you want to be reasonable in your belief.
* Claims to know that IC has been debunked, and even IF its proven true, he neglects the fact that nature, and evolution in special, cannot produce irreducible complex things, and the only alternative is a conscious intelligent creator. 
Abiogenesis is an unproven science. So, just because we can't prove for certain, does not make it rational to make up a solution like God. It may be that abiogenesis is impossible. I'm not claiming it is definitely true. It is the direction we are going to investigate how we came to be currently though
* Once again, does not admit that there are only two possibilities, either a creator, or none, and feels granted to claim that ignorance is justified. 
How do you know that it can't happen naturally?  argument from ignorance fallacy.
* Naturalism of the gaps fallacy
How do you know God is even possible? Seems like a much larger claim to say that an endlessly complex being exists than to claim that a basic lifeform could come in to existence from nonlife materials that we do have evidence of.
* Doesnt know that God is not complex. 
There is no evidence cells have a creator. You're proving my point for me now. You're just too biased in your position to get that.
* Thats called blame shifting. Accusing the counterpart of what he is guilty of. 
I don't know what evidence it would take for me to believe a creator (or God) made us. But if there is a God, I'm sure it would know what it would take to provide such evidence. And it has not bothered to do so.
* According to the Bible, he is just lying. Romans 1.21: 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
You seem to really be stuck in this assumption that I think God in fact does not exist. Which is false. God may exist. It may have created us. I just don't see any point in investing any belief in such a proposition. Rather, I find it more reasonable to admit that I don't know. So I can more honestly investigate what the truth actually is.
* It just isn't God. He excludes God a priori, but is open for any alternative that does not include him. 
Furthermore, I find it a more worthwhile use of my time to invest belief in things that do have evidence of existence. As they are more practical for me to deal with the reality I find myself stuck in.
As we know the materials that it takes for the building blocks of life to come together do in fact exist. We have nothing to go off of for believing a God exists though. It's not like we've ever seen something like that.
You've decided to be closed minded and unreasonable. Just can't quite face how you're wrong, huh?
With what we know of the big bang, asserting that there must be a creator behind it makes me think of how the Greeks believed Zeus made lighting happen. We didn't have an explanation for something, but desperately wanted to know how it worked. So we made up an answer. It seemed too amazing to be by accident. So, we attributed the answer to God. Trying to explain the big bang the same way is the same. Exact. Thing.
We're both ignorant of answers beyond our current understanding. The difference is, I'm willing to admit it, while you want to claim you know things we can't possibly know yet. You can spend your life living a lie if you want. It's your life.
How do you know that absolutely nothing cant do something? You should check out Lawrence Krauss's book A Universe from Nothing. There actually is some scientific support behind the whole something from nothing idea. I don't think Krauss fully proved something can come from nothing. But he did provide some actual evidence to argue his position. You're claiming to know that it can't without any means to prove your position whatsoever.
* So here he makes actually an exclusion of his ignorance, and believes there is reason to believe that nothing has causal powers. He just betraied his claimed position and opened up to show his bias. 

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
The matter about God is that anyone knows in its innermost that he exists. But that knowledge is something like morality. We cannot explain where that knowledge or sentiment comes from, but its there. Its just inside of us. So we can either suppress that knowledge or develop it and express it through faith. Gods existence cannot be proven by sensorial experience, but, as the apostle Paul famously says in Romans 1, his existence can be inferred through creation. Creation confirms our knowledge.

For that reason, unbelievers are inexcusable. Seeing it from that perspective explains why almost no atheist is a positive or strong atheist, with a rational conviction, that our existence is better explained by no agency at all. It makes no sense. So normally, he avoids that rationalization, by the risk of exposing the nonsense of that view. So he prefers either just to say that he does not believe what believers say, or claim ignorance, which is a dishonest side-step. Or claiming that " science is working on it". He HOPES for Gods non-existence and tries in some cases to develop the faith that evolution, abiogenesis, and multiverses explain God away.

It's a pathetic, irrational venture. The " i don't know" activists on FB are like a poorly dressed door to door salesmen, trying to sale a bad smelling junk-food as delicious, and has a hard time to hide its bad taste. But nonetheless tries tirelessly, and if the well-fed, accustomed to prime steak, fumbles his nose, the poor salesmen becomes aggressive, frustrated, and begins name-calling the potential client's mom. I feel no sorry. Sorry guys.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Limited causal alternatives  do not justify to claim of " not knowing "


http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1810-its-not-justified-to-claim-ignorance-limited-causal-alternatives-for-origins-do-not-justify-to-claim-of-not-knowing

Atheists have transformed a traditionally positive claim, namely that most probably there is no God, or/and that there is no evidence of Gods existence, into a passive claim, namely: " I just do not believe your claims about God", and transformed it into a declaration of a psychological state of mind, or a declaration of ignorance: " We replace God with honesty by saying "we don't know". Simply saying "God did it" is making up an answer because we are too lazy to try to figure out the real truth. They want to get rid of the hard work, that is to provide the " burden of proof", and claim that it rests only on the claimant, namely the believer in God, which has to provide positive evidence. So he can lay back on its chair, to become a mere spectator, which has nothing else to do than to become the judge, and the theist "sweats to its exhaustion" attempting to comply with the demands of the unbeliever.

Either there is a God - creator and causal agency of the universe, or not. God either exists or he doesn’t, and there is no halfway house. These are the only two possible explanations. Upon the logic of mutual exclusion, they are mutually exclusive (it was one or the other) so we can use eliminative logic: if no God is highly improbable, then the existence of God is highly probable. In order for an atheist to claim that there is no ( sufficient) evidence of Gods existence, he needs to know how to recognize how something observed in the natural world is signature of design, rather than non-design. It's not valid side-step to say: "God knows what I would recognize as design."

We know what kind of artefacts require human intelligence, as well, what artefacts require intelligence.  Our mind must be an orderly and objective product of the same rationale, that is, perfectly consistent Creator. If we see a blueprint with precise instructions on how to build an industrial factory park of various interconnected interdependent factories, including all machines, robotic production lines, energy generators, computers etc.:  we know intuitively and recognize immediately  that someone very intelligent must have elaborated the blueprints upon knowledge, information, intuition, inventive power, experience, and reason to elaborate said blueprints, as for example, to make a factory park. We know of no mechanism based on non-intelligence able to produce such things. Biological cells ARE in a literal sense factory park of highest complexity, hosting up to 2 billion molecular protein machines like ribosomes, which are interlinked molecular high-tech factories.  Intelligence produces self-replicating machines and books. And so only intelligence can produce life, that depends on coded information, proteins, and molecular machines. Life, and Biological self-replicating cells are, with extremely high probability, the product of intelligent design.

If the analogy of two phenomena are very close and striking while at the same time, the cause of ONE of the phenomenon is very obvious; it becomes scarcely possible to refuse to admit the action of an analogous cause of the other phenomenon, though (the cause of the other phenomenon is) not so obvious in itself"
--- in "Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy", London, Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green, 1831, page 149.

When you see that:
the way genetic information encoded in the DNA is exactly the same as what we humans would do to elaborate a blueprint to build a factory, full of complex machines, compartments, production lines, computers, etc;
the way that the nucleus communicates with its ribosome is similar to how we humans have designed computers to communicate with one another,
then one has to AT LEAST stop and wonder whether some intelligent being has designed the genetic code and made the communication system between the nucleus and its ribosomes....

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum