Disproof of intelligent design is not proof of no intelligent design

Engine · 02-19-2012, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RVCA

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

That was actually my favorite part of the post/argument.

crukster · 02-19-2012, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

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.

I think a lot of people would want to and a lot of people consider a lack of evidence as disproof, which isn't true. You'd have to rival God to disprove God, and then just relinquish the title of God if anyone starts worshipping you.

But the fact that's an unachievable goal is definitly some sort of evidence of our limitation, which just makes it a bit stupid that anyone mocks anyone else's beliefs.

I'm not saying God is a dude or dudette in the sky who magically builds things with a pair of boxing gloves, just that if you consider what I said about limitation, maybe some World religion holds the personified answers to the perfect Scientific explanation of God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RVCA

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

Probably right about that one if you're only taking into account the last line and not the rest of the argument man!

RVCA · 02-19-2012, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crukster

Probably right about that one if you're only taking into account the last line and not the rest of the argument man!

In any case, I think Hermione Granger best sums up the response to your initial post.

Quote:

You could claim that anything's real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist!

Guybrush · 02-19-2012, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crukster

I think a lot of people would want to and a lot of people consider a lack of evidence as disproof, which isn't true. You'd have to rival God to disprove God, and then just relinquish the title of God if anyone starts worshipping you.

But the fact that's an unachievable goal is definitly some sort of evidence of our limitation, which just makes it a bit stupid that anyone mocks anyone else's beliefs.

I'm not saying God is a dude or dudette in the sky who magically builds things with a pair of boxing gloves, just that if you consider what I said about limitation, maybe some World religion holds the personified answers to the perfect Scientific explanation of God.

The thing to me is .. This idea that you can't prove/disprove anything is not a new idea to me. It may seem fresh to you because you are young (I guess?), but it's a fairly established principle, also in science. This line of thinking is what made Descartes propose his famous statement Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am. It was the only thing he knew for sure. Everything else, even so called "proof" could be f.ex figments of his imagination without him knowing.

Science accepts this and doesn't actually work by proving things in that way. What you do in science is you define a limit to what you want to accept as true and then you stick to that. Example, if you want to say that americans are taller than japanese, then you test that and if your statistics show that the statement is likely to be true with more than 95% certainty, then you accept the statement as true. But, you are of course open to the possibility that the statement may be disproved in the future.

Another way to establish truth in science is by gaining support from other studies, observations and other tested hypotheses. The number of tested hypotheses which support the modern idea of evolution f.ex is so staggering that the theory as a whole is accepted as scientific truth. Of course, if you want to nitpick, there's always the slightest chance evolution does not exist, just like there is a chance God exists.

crukster · 02-19-2012, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RVCA

In any case, I think Hermione Granger best sums up the response to your initial post.

Wingardium leviosa?

Quote:

You could claim that anything's real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist!

Yeah alright I would tolerate that when she was 12 but she's a woman now. What about if there are no alternative explanations for what it does?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

The thing to me is .. This idea that you can't prove/disprove anything is not a new idea to me. It may seem fresh to you because you are young (I guess?), but it's a fairly established principle, also in science. This line of thinking is what made Descartes propose his famous statement Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am. It was the only thing he knew for sure. Everything else, even so called "proof" could be f.ex figments of his imagination without him knowing.

Science accepts this and doesn't actually work by proving things in that way. What you do in science is you define a limit to what you want to accept as true and then you stick to that. Example, if you want to say that americans are taller than japanese, then you test that and if your statistics show that the statement is likely to be true with more than 95% certainty, then you accept the statement as true. But, you are of course open to the possibility that the statement may be disproved in the future.

Another way to establish truth in science is by gaining support from other studies, observations and other tested hypotheses. The number of tested hypotheses which support the modern idea of evolution f.ex is so staggering that the theory as a whole is accepted as scientific truth. Of course, if you want to nitpick, there's always the slightest chance evolution does not exist, just like there is a chance God exists.

That's solid man and I respect the scientific process, I'm not a qualified scientist, pretty much I'm just bringing armchair philosophy to the computer here.

I don't have any problem when you have some proper evidence or a real theory to crunch like atomic theory for example and I get that a lot of discoveries are trial and error and freak chance.

Because even Steven Hawkings, up until a little while ago said it's not an impossibility to attribute intelligent design to the initial cause of the Universe, I think he's revised it since then, but theories are always up to be challenged.

We can trace most observable phenomenon along a line of cause and effect but what's at the start of it all? And what about comment elements, literally atomic elements but in general the primary particles of what everything is built of; is that an actual inherent pattern or have we just grouped those together to make them easier for us to understand. And if all it is on the most basic level is chaos, then what the **** started the chaos? I realise that's jumping the gun and asking too many questions, but that's how things get started.

I'm of the belief that evolution doesn't need to be counter-idealistic to God. It's more like God caused the Universe we observe.

People have a crack at pop science for their own agendas, probably because they don't like the idea of something watching over them. We live on a Planet surrounded by satellites we're watched over anyway man, so this is like a way to tie a knot in the argument of "God doesn't exist because I don't know what God is" and start the argument as I think Descartes did of "What the **** is God?"

I don't think things are that bad on the Planet in general thesedays when it comes to discussing controversial ideas, but all the same maybe everyone just needs to chill out and ask themselves what they really know, cos if it's nothing, awesome that's where you start asking questions and observing the Universe.

What is God? I dunno, all I know is there's nothing which adaquetly explains how we got here, any answer requires faith to some degree.

RVCA · 02-19-2012, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crukster

Yeah alright I would tolerate that when she was 12 but she's a woman now. What about if there are no alternative explanations for what it does?

If there's no alternative explanation, the most honorable and sensible thing to do is admit ignorance, not feign knowledge.

Guybrush · 02-19-2012, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crukster

What is God? I dunno, all I know is there's nothing which adaquetly explains how we got here, any answer requires faith to some degree.

Yes, true and an important point. I think people should be critical towards what they choose to put their faith in. Myself, I want the world I believe in to be as similar as possible to the world I believe I exist in. I want to be as right as I can about stuff and I want to minimize the chance that I am wrong. Because of that, I choose to put my faith in things that can be seen, tried, tested, experimented with, etc. I am very sceptical towards things which are not proved through formal observation/testing and which I can not experience as anything other than ideas, generally other people's, like the existence of God or ghosts. Even if I did experience one of these things, I might question my sanity before questioning my idea of the world without these things.

So yeah, faith is important and I think people should "spend it" wisely

On a side note, I feel like there are perfectly good explanations why we're here, even if they in rough ways do have to cover a lot of ground (explaining processes taking place over millions - even billions of years). But the start of everything is of course an elusive thing to figure out.

TheBig3 · 02-19-2012, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Electrophonic Tonic

Sounds like sound logic to me...

that was awesome.

Mrd00d · 02-19-2012, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Electrophonic Tonic

Sounds like sound logic to me...

Excellent use of Boondocks. +10 points.

I think it's great that they're voiced by black dudes. I can't believe Samuel L. Jackson almost did a whole scene from Pulp Fiction, almost word for word. That is what's awesome.

blastingas10 · 02-22-2012, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

I like the way you ended that.

But I think that is a really good point you made.

Side note: I saw someone mentioned ghosts. Ghosts are real, people. Whether you want to accept it or not. There is no denying it in my mind. If you're perfectly sane and an intelligent person, you will not question your sanity if you were to have an experience. There's no reason to. I'm a sane person all the way up to the time of the experience, and I'm just as sane after the experience. But I guess I just lost sanity for that one moment and regained it after it happened.

I'd like to think they weren't real. But dammit, they are.