Disproof of intelligent design is not proof of no intelligent design

[crukster]

I'm revising **** I wrote for my comic books, and I found this in my archived notes.

Any attempt to disprove God would most likely be centred around recreating fundamental events or ideas of God.
Take for example the creation of the Universe. If we could recreate this event and define every element of the equation it would be evidence in favour of a
hypothesis against intelligent design.

Although there is still the argument that it could have been God's will for
us to discover this method, it would be physical evidence for an argument against Divine belief or any form of divine/almighty
existence.

But there is a problem even with evidence of how the Universe began. To be in possession of this
evidence and to practically apply it to create for example "a parallel Universe" to demonstrate it's validity,
a calculation and action needs to be taken for the event to occur. It can't be proven unless it's calculated and put into action
but by putting the calculation into action it is proven that a Universe can't be created without
the intervention of intelligence. In order to justify the unbiased recreation of the creation of our Universe, there would have
had to have been an intervening force, just as you intervene to create a new Universe.

To suggest calculation is a purely Human creation is to suggest you can control what you calculate; but
proof that this is not true is the simple sum 1+1=2. Calculation cannot control the outcome of a sum.

To say the Human calculation is eternally flawed to x degree because of our involvement or limited intelligence, and that the Universe
in reality needs no calculation is to ignore the involvement as a factor and is simply an admittance of failure, creating our flaws into the new Universe.



What is your rebuttal?

[Engine]

Let me read your comic books and then maybe I'll indulge you with a rebuttal.
I don't expect them to prove the unfounded presumptions you make in your post but maybe they'll help me understand you better.

[crukster]

I haven't written or drawn them yet, this is basic notes, kid's stuff compared to what I'm writing up for my main mythology lol I'll let you know when I've got something on paper though dude, cheers

It's just a thought provoking idea.

[Sansa Stark]

If there is such thing as intelligent design, why do women have clitorises that are capable of orgasm? A woman's orgasm has no reproductive function.


derp

[crukster]

Probably cos if sex feels good people make more babies, I dunno. I'm not God I don't know the why to everything, I'm just saying it's sort of beyond the scope for anything on the Planet to "disprove" any answer to the origin of the Universe without presenting an alternate explanation, or some ****.

herp derp

[Sansa Stark]

Yeah because based on what we know of religious teachings, it's a big deal that a woman enjoys sex! The clitoris, where the majority of women orgasm from, is rarely stimulated in sex.

[Electrophonic Tonic]

Sounds like sound logic to me...

[crukster]

Originally Posted by Paloma

Yeah because based on what we know of religious teachings, it's a big deal that a woman enjoys sex! The clitoris, where the majority of women orgasm from, is rarely stimulated in sex.

Well, actually, I'm not talking about religious teachings because that changes depending on who's teaching, I'm talking about the core science of reality.

It's a big deal to me I'll keep that in mind!

[Guybrush]

Blah. Who works to disprove God? I know many people spend time arguing that a grand designers finger needn't have been involved in various aspects of our existence, like the birth of life, but I can't remember hearing about anyone working to disprove him .. or her.

I guess the reason is anyone would understand it is (at least at present) an unachievable goal.

[RVCA]

Originally Posted by crukster

What is your rebuttal?

Seems to me that anyone who sticks this at the end of their argument is not worth engaging.