meaning in the design.

When people stop assuming a designer, they stop looking for meaning, and something wonderful starts happening;

They make their own meaning.

- none of which we've been able to reproduce from scratch.

I imagine you would laugh at the person who would suggest that a cell phone doesn't need a designer, and yet for a MUCH more complex design - DNA (life), you would think by listening to the skeptics that life occurs so simply and naturally that no designer is necessary. No, complex design points to a designer. It's only logical.

When you can point me to the person who has created even a single blade of grass - able to reproduce - from scratch, I might start to consider the atheist line that accidents, blind luck, and chance are the cause of life on earth.

The odds of chance being the "answer" are so infinitesimally small, it's simply not logical...

is that you start by saying a cell phone is so complex, as compared to... well, nature. Non-human-made objects, being so simple and NOT designed.

But then you turn around and now want to complain that nature IS complex, even a single blade of grass is astonishing. Well, which is it? Is nature simple or complex?

http://infidels.org/library/modern/theism/design.html

Atheists contend that life "occurred" naturally. One could assume that since life is so abundant and diverse here on planet earth, that the process of "occurring" is relatively straight forward - easy to understand, observable, easy to reproduce. And yet we can't do it.

The cell phone example is simply an appeal to the logical. We know that the phone was designed - we can go talk to the designers. Living cells are arguably much more complex - and yet atheists argue that for the more complex, no designer is necessary. I find this argument illogical.

Which is why I stated: point me to the person who has created even a single blade of grass - able to reproduce - from scratch...

IMO, you can't have it both ways. If life occurs so naturally, without direction (all you need is to add water!), logic dictates that given direction and control, we should be able to produce life.

If you found a phone on the ground in the middle of a field, what would make you assume the object was designed?

Which is why when I see something integrated (complex) I assume a designer.

The environment is MORE complex.

IMO, integrated complexity (life) = designer

Chance doesn't adequately explain life.

If complexity is the relative measure of "difficulty to produce", then one could logically conclude that the blade of grass is more complex than the phone.

Agreed?

Which is why your argument here is so flawed. Do you see why?

Is the grass of a more complex design? Or no?

You've only begged the question.

You are trying to simultaneously state that a cell phone requires a designer because it's so much more "designed" and complex than the natural environment around it, but also that the environment around it is so gosh darn complex, it TOO requires a designer.

You can't have it both ways. That's why the teleological argument is not seriously advanced by anyone other than simple-minded creationists.

Another area where the logic comes back around and bites you is in making the assumption that "complex = requires a designer." Certainly a human being is far more complex than a cell phone, so if the cell phone needs a designer, then a human does as well. But then clearly whatever designed a human being is at least that much more complex than humans, so why doesn't your designer need a designer? And so on?

Clearly you are more intelligent than the typical creationists peddling this silliness - can you not see the glaring flaws in its logic?

I strongly suggest you go read that link I gave you early in our exchange.

It was not my intent to argue:
"a cell phone requires a designer because it's so much more "designed" and complex than the natural environment around it"
My apologies if that was your conclusion.

In essence my cell phone analogy can be summed up: if the complex (phone) requires a designer, then it logically follows that the more complex (life) also requires a designer.

pls see my post #52 to Binky - that pretty much sums up my position re: designing the designer

then the designer of that life also needs a designer.

Your post #52 does nothing to get yourself out of that dilemma, sorry. You violated the rule yourself when you declared the designer of the cell phone (life) needed a designer. You can't escape that trap without special pleading, which then invalidates your reasoning anyway.

Here's another take on the simplistic and self-defeating argument from design. You should really read it. Again, you seem a lot more intelligent than the normal creationist riff-raff that pushing this silly "argument." You can do better.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-schwartz/intelligent-design-watchmaker_b_1730878.html

we both agree that phones require designers.

However, you assert that phone designers do not require their own designer - because a phone designer can (eventually) come about "naturally".

Ok - please explain why you get to make the claim that (phone) designers do not require their own designer - and yet a "life" designer is required to have a designer?

Here's a thought - perhaps our "life designer" also came about "naturally". Now of course I say this tongue-in-cheek, but is it logically any different than your argument regarding the "naturally occurring" phone designer?

You claim a designer is needed for a phone, because you know phones are designed. (Since you noticed, and attempted to avoid the first fatal flaw of the teleological argument.)

But then you shift gears and argue that because life is complex, it needs a designer. In order to make the comparison you're trying to make, you have to be consistent with your reasoning in both. But by avoiding that aforementioned flaw, you undermined the analogy. Oops!

come about naturally.

However, I just find it illogical and highly unlikely.

Since this is the only universe we are currently aware of, and since life arose in it, the chances of it happening ended up being 100%. That's pretty damn likely.

You don't also see merit in the old "747 in a junkyard" argument, do you?

"...life...the chances of it happening ended up being 100%"

But was it causeless, or "guided"?

Causeless, chance? IMO - these are illogical.

It's also a fallacy, and it has a name: the Argument from Personal Incredulity.

"Causeless, chance? IMO - these are illogical."

Again, simply declared by you with no support whatsoever. Unless it's your god (or "designer," but let's not mince words about what you're actually suggesting), in which case it's perfectly fine to be causeless, because of special pleading. You really need to work on some consistency.

...and saw a liberal rolling out Kent Hovind-caliber defenses of creationism.

But we're smarter than those anti-science republicans!

capable yet...

We only recently figured out how to get our bodies off the ground and into the air, we only recently discovered that atoms could be utilized for energy or destruction. We only recently figured out how to replace an organ in a human.

We are still only newborn babes when it comes to understanding how all of these systems work. We are not anywhere near a scientific zenith of understanding our surroundings, our universe, or our own bodies.

As science progresses those things you think we can't do will be a lot more likely to be quite doable as was the case with powered flight, heart transplants, microchip processing, or genome sequencing. You and I might be long dead before we get there, but most of humanity died long before we made the amazing advances of the last 115 years...once the process gets started it moves quicker than the millennia of ignorance prior, but it will still be time consuming.

However, it is a bit of pie-in-the-sky reasoning (one day we will be able to create life).

One could also make the argument, that one day we will achieve faster-than-light travel. Maybe, maybe not. But I certainly wouldn't bet my life on it.

IMO - I don't lose anything by logically extrapolating that complex design = designer. In fact, perhaps I gain - especially if there is a designer.

I understand and accept that other opinions differ...

If I make a blade of grass IT IS BY DEFINITION INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED.

that the blade of grass (that we we can't produce), came about by chance.

If, given the abundance of life on earth, and given that it all began "by chance", it logically follows that the "process of life" should be relatively easy to reproduce.

Agreed?

Rather than millions of years.

If you aren't trolling, and want to understand this, you'll want to read The Blind Watchmaker. It answers your question in excruciating detail. There are other non-dawkins sources if you'd prefer.

Has been thoroughly refuted. You're also committing argument from ignorance and special pleading fallacies. Please don't speak of logic when you don't have a clue how to use it.

...god that somebody obviously had to design and create. So who designed and created god?

Clearly the uber-god that created god would have to be so supercalefragilistically complex that this uber-god must have had a designer, so there must and uber-super-ultimate god who designed the uber-god.

But this uber-super-ultimate god would have to be so .....

well, you get the idea. The ancients were wrong. It' not "turtles all the way down". It's gods all the way down.

Our inability to understand the "origins" of a designer doesn't negate their (potential) existence.

If we admit the possibility of a god, then we have to accept the likelihood of god's god who created god, and god's god's god who created god's god, and god's god's god's god who created the god who created god's god.


Ever notice how when you say "god, god, god, god,..." over and over for about ten minutes, the word stops meaning anything? Maybe because it didn't mean anything to begin with.

is our understanding of something a prerequisite of it's existence?

Understanding the origins of a creator, but not ok with not understanding the origins of life? I guess it explains why you think making up a creator to explain life makes sense... But shouldn't you have the same standard for something like a creator? Why the double standard?

I managed to keep current on the relevant science. So there's no double standard. There's understanding how something works, versus telling myself fairy tales about something that does not exist.

But to quote Richard Dawkins: "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

"understanding how something works" includes the ability to reproduce the "thing".

As I said previously: point me to the person who has created even a single blade of grass - itself able to reproduce - from scratch, and I might start to consider the atheist line that accidents, blind luck, and chance are the cause of life on earth.

We understand what causes rain, but we can't reproduce rain on demand.

Your definition of "understand" is just silly.

I'll pray that you see the light. (Think that will do anything?)

that you *do understand a lot about the origins of life*

(MW) definition of 'understand': to know how (something) works or happens

It seems reasonable to me that understanding the origins of life would include some ability to reproduce it.

There have been successful "cloud seedings" - creating life - not so much...

I see that you are impervious to logic, so I won't waste any more of my time on this.

I simply stated that the inability to explain a thing doesn't mean it can't exist. Agreed?

In regards to the origins of life, I'm simply making the observation that the integrated complexity life - points to a designer.

Why? Because that is the nature of complex designs - they don't occur by accident.

then god had to have a designer himself.

Why do you refuse to apply your own "logic" to your own claim? You can't say "my logic works this far, and no farther." If god is complex then god must have had a designer. YOUR RULE. YOUR LOGIC. YOUR STANDARD. So either you believe that everything complex requires a designer, or, you seem to be claiming that everything except your so-called god required a designer. If that's your claim, then how do you justify applying your logic to everything except your god?

You can't just sidestep this and ignore it. It's a serious question that you don't seem inclined to take seriously.

We have two explanations about the origin of life: 1) chance 2) design

IMO - chance doesn't adequately explain life - it's not logical.

That leaves a designer. My observation that complexity points to a designer is not to make a claim about designers - it's a claim about the object of the design.

Your claim to "understand" not withstanding, I assert that we don't fully understand the origins of life - else we would be able to reproduce life.

And if we can't explain the design, it follows that we can't impose our own requirements that the existence of a designer fit within our expected parameters (that the complex designer also requires a designer).

My two cents - I accept that your position differs...

Your logic. Yet you refuse to follow your logic to the inevitable conclusion. Hence, you are refusing to be logical. I can't argue with irrationality.

the complex (life) is possible by chance.

It seems to me that if we can't explain life (the object of design), on what basis can we make demands concerning the parameters of the designer?

IOW, if you make a cell phone, you know that cell phones don't happen by accident. We expect a designer for the phone.

But in this the atheist is inconsistent, because he expects the phone to have a designer, but then asserts that the phone designer CAN'T have a designer - because to be logically consistent, the designer would HAVE to have a designer?!

NO, if life was designed, like the phone, it merely points to a designer.

The phone can't make demands of it's designer, and neither can humans make demands of their designer.

You still refuse to answer that one simple question.

A complex god points to a designer that designed god. Your logic. Your line of reasoning. You must either accept your own line of reasoning or reject it. Which is it? All I want is one simple answer.

Why do you refuse to answer this one simple question?

[font size=4]Is a complex god possible by chance?[/font]

Is this "proof by evasion?"

"Is a complex god possible by chance?" I have no idea.

Is a complex life form possible by chance, I am forced to answer, by your logic, "I have no idea."

But the truth is, I do have an idea. The answer is "no" a complex life form is not possible by "chance". It IS possible, however, as a result of random mutation and cross breeding acted upon by natural and sexual selection.

Therefore I have no need to invent a god as the cause of something whose cause I understand in purely naturalistic terms.

Do you think evolution depends on 'chance' rather than selection? That would be wrong.

Here is a good refutation of the nonsense. A physicist has calculated the probability that life will emerge naturally under the right conditions. It is consistent with the only observable 'meaning' to the universe, and that is to achieve equilibrium. Life forms facilitate entropy, over inert forms.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

--imm

And who or what designed the designer of the designer?

And so on until infinity.

On my DU?

Cell phones don't require a designer, they have one.

The first one is that, so far, we haven't been able to create life from non living materials, although we have gotten pretty close to assembling rna out of "stuff". The fact that we humans don't know how to replicate the process that results in rna and dna based life forms doesn't prove anything other than a lack of knowledge. Claiming god is proved by our ignorance of something is a fallacy.

The second argument you have mixed with the first is the classic id argument used to confuse those who don't "get" evolution, that somehow the complexity of life forms argues for a designer. It doesn't. Evolution produces complexity without a designer. A "blade of grass" is not even an interesting example. Generally ID liars and idiots go after eyes or other complex components and attempt to assert irreducible complexity, as they are aware that evolutionary theory can amply explain and produce the evidence for the progressive evolution of simpler things such as a "blade of grass". They lose on the irreducible complexity front too, but you haven't even managed to get there.

The manipulation of life forms at the cellular level by humans has gotten pretty sophisticated recently. I wouldn't be too smug about your argument from ignorance.

to be "smug". And to be honest, the "smugness" has all been coming from those on your side (not to mention phrases like "liars, idiots", etc.). So please own your own poor behavior before projecting it onto others with whom you disagree.

The reason I bring up the humble blade of grass is exactly because it is "uninteresting". Certainly the demand of the IDers to explain the complexities of the eye is a tall order, which is why I ask you to point me to those who have built even the simplest form of plant life - from scratch.

And yes, "The manipulation of life forms at the cellular level by humans has gotten pretty sophisticated recently" - is absolutely true. But I think you'd have to admit that "manipulating" is a far cry from "creating" life.

Because it doesn't look like you did.

And people might have been nicer to you were you not parroting Hovind-esque arguments for creationism. Just sayin.

"The fact that we humans don't know how to replicate the process that results in rna and dna based life forms doesn't prove anything other than a lack of knowledge."

Which is an odd form of argument to make, because you could distill this entire discussion in this OP down to: "Well, we don't know how life started, but we KNOW it wasn't by design". Which begs the question: from where does this knowledge come?

All I have argued from the beginning of this discussion is that when we see complexity in the material world (phones, etc) we understand without even thinking that these objects are products of design. Why then is it such a leap to infer that the MUCH more complex (life) might also be the product of design?

Especially since the replication of such designs - even at the most simple level - continues to elude us. Will the creation of life always elude us? It's hard to say; but when we can, you might then win me over to the idea that life can happen - independent of volition.

I hope you understand that your "...hyper-intelligent shade of blue..." argument is definitely a straw man - agreed?

You state: "I do, however, know there is not one single shred of evidence suggesting that it was designed."
I agree. As far as I know, no one has found a "designer label" on the universe. However, that doesn't mean that we can't infer or extrapolate from what we know concerning our own experience.

To wit: one thing we know is that the building of complex machines requires human volition (design) - agreed? All I have ever asked on this thread is to consider the logical extrapolation of this knowledge: "Why then is it such a leap to infer that the MUCH more complex (life) might also be the product of design? "

life might, or it might not be designed. But if there was a design implemented - us, it makes perfect sense, it's what we'd expect. The alternative? that life came about by chance? is a less logical assumption - imho.

I understand that there are others whose opinions differ - I accept that...

This is a robin:



It flies. It eats bugs. It hatches from an egg.

This is a greater mouse-eared bat:



It flies. It eats bugs.

Is it safe to assume it hatches from an egg?

'What is the meaning of life' type questions have always elicited a blank stare from me. It's whatever you want.

In fact, that's the most disappointing aspect of the human condition that I have observed. Too often, people sit on their hands waiting for something they subjectively interpret as a 'sign' of purpose or meaning.

We create meaning as easily as we create thought. Just do it. (No endorsement of Nike products is suggested or implied by this post.)

Do you, want anything?

the article is wrong.

Our nation has become better in terms of legally recognizing all Americans as having the right to live and love as they choose, better in terms of lifespan and medical treatment, better in terms of less murders, better in many ways than just 40 years ago while religion has slipped as an influence in people's lives.

HuffPo had a piece a couple of years ago indicating that more people are declaring they have no religious affiliation than any time since they began polling this data in the 1930s. It doesn't necessarily mean more people are less spiritual, but it does mean they don't self identify with a specific religion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/religion-america-decline-low-no-affiliation-report_n_2867626.html

I would submit that perhaps the better outcome for our society over the last 40 years is precisely because more people are freeing themselves from their religious affiliations and living their lives free from the burdens that religion imposes making for a safer society with better legal protections for all and better opportunities for medical research unencumbered by religious dogma.

Of course YMMV as it most certainly should.

While much of the opposition has come from religion, religious groups have also been positive activists in the GLBT civil rights movement in the US, as well as many of the other causes that you mention.

I think the disaffiliation is a factor, as the religious institutions have not changed in ways that their members have, but the nones are actively seeking other ways of being religious and forming different kinds of religious groups.

Let's stand with and support the religious people and groups that are doing the right thing and oppose together those that are not.

I believe you are honest in your efforts to find commonality and work with coalitions, I find that admirable but with respect to religion my distrust is such that I am not confident I can trust those sub-groups who are doing the right thing with any long term cooperative arrangement.

In the absence of religion there is no reason to elevate one group over another nor is there any definitive reason to devalue one group of citizens over another. Consequently the application of the law free from consideration of christian, muslim, buddhist, or any other perspective becomes irrelevant. Without god there is no reason to hate gays, without god there is no reason to believe one should be superior to one's wife and she should submit and obey, without god there is no reason to believe any form of servitude is acceptable. Without god there is no reason to invade your neighbor's land to create a unified islamic caliphate. Without god there is no reason to kill abortion doctors.

I think without religion these things become less defensible, with religion involved we have many who believe hating those who have a different religion is acceptable, killing them is sometimes a requirement, and suppressing the rights of infidels is also acceptable while denying equal protection under the law is another appropriate protection. I find it difficult to respect christians or muslims, or any other religion when some of their members are hateful, fear mongering individuals who wish to prevent all members of a society from equal participation.

Sure some christians make comments about how distasteful the WBC is and some muslims have spoken out against islamic violence, but a great many more quietly stand by and do nothing. I am reminded of Edmund Burke:

might do?

The history of humans elevating one group over another is abundant and it doesn't always have to do with religion. It is easy to scapegoat religion as the source of all evil, but it is short sighted and may cause you to miss all kinds of important information. To think that religion is the only cause of people killing each other or genocide or other atrocities that human have inflicted on others it naive, to put it kindly.

If I were to turn what you say around and make statements such as "Without god, there is no reason to love your fellow man", "Without god, there is no reason to care for the most needy", "Without god, there is no moral compass", I suspect you would strongly object, and rightly so.

The fact is that there is good and there is evil and some of each can be found with and without religion. Do you really think there are no non-believing bigots? wife beaters" murderers? human traffickers? pedophiles? Really?

If you confine the evil to religion, you are going to miss all the other evil that surrounds you. This kind of black and white thinking is best left to the fundamentalists who also can't see that there is good and bad despite religion.

So let's stand against evil in all it's forms and stop trying to bludgeon all of religion for the bad done in the name of some.

You need not accept any religious morality, but I think you are a good person and are capable of allowing good people to embrace good beliefs, even if you don't share them.

on the Internet?

Because that's what you seem to think will happen. And so you attack and belittle and marginalize anyone who doesn't sufficiently grovel and compliment religion whenever possible.

as drought and drying up of rivers and aquifers continues and the soil becomes so exhausted we can no longer feed ourselves we will not fight and kill to obtain these things to sustain us because religion is dead we all just sit and die in blessed indifference because we have no reason to hate anymore our own innate goodness will then flourish and we can perish with equality.

If we got rid of it, we would no longer need to worry.

Your dishonest snark doesn't help things.

New Improved Pope is all over the climate issue, except of course when it comes to population control, which is critical to any progress, where he is firmly planted in the 19th century.

your god will save you and the planet...or just come and take you off of it so it won't happen to you. Some religions believe that god will rapture them into the great beyond...perhaps that's your way out.

or legitimately take the position that everything would be just hunky dory if religion would just go away.

It's great to dispatch straw men, ain't it?

Has anyone here blamed everything on religion? Anyone? Why repeat such a falsehood if not? How does that help discussion?

that people like us blame EVERYTHING on religion. Not even the first one living on a yacht.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=182339

Of course, when asked to provide even a shred of evidence for that, the first one sank like an anchor. I expect cbayer will also fail miserably to back any of this up. She just likes to throw out groundless accusations at people who don't bow and scrape before her almighty agenda. But perhaps she'll prove me wrong and actually substantiate some of this. For once. My guess is that this rather interesting pattern of falsely claiming that some poster here "blame religion for everything" will continue, though.

They won't silence me.

Ah cbayer, your agenda is so transparent.

which has a thread here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218194427
http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-future-of-religion-is-bleak-1430104785

This "ascendant" article mainly quotes worldwide trends - in which Islam is growing, largely because it is common in the countries with the fastest-growing populations. Christianity's worldwide proportion will stay about the same, because of a partial presence in growing countries, that is balanced by some people switching away from Christianity that Dennett notes.

While the 'unaffiliated' proportion will grow in 'western' countries, their overall growth rate is low (it might even be negative). And China, which is estimated at about 50% unaffiliated, is going to decline from 19.5% to 14% of the world's population: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/03/why-people-with-no-religion-are-projected-to-decline-as-a-share-of-the-worlds-population/

Which indicates a rather static situation, just as it has been through recorded history.

Religion isn't going anywhere, so it behooves us to make it be the best it can be.

so that its negative effects are minimized.

Battles can be fought on multiple fronts.

I don't doubt religion will continue a while, but it hopefully will continue to fall away as it is doing now in the developed world.

Religion is a bad idea. Faith isn't a virtue and harms people.

Isn't this sort of like Mitt Romney saying his polling indicated he was going to win the election?

How do you see them as similar?

"It's true simply because X thinks or says it is".

You knew that perfectly well, Carol...why did you pretend otherwise?

including the United States don't improve.

This means 3 things would have to happen for religion to be ascendant, food security needs to stay the same or worsen over time, health care access is not improved, and several economies don't grow, remaining stagnant.

The results will, of course, be more of the same, some pockets of sectarian violence, resource squandering by corrupt governments, etc. While this is an optimistic view to people of faith, its a rather bleak view to those who care about humanity at large.