Philosophy Now Forum

Viveka wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:36 pm

Viveka wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:29 pm I see, and I agree.

Fair enough.

What particular issue was on your mind when you posed the OP?

Intelligent Design as having a proper use for the body through its own design.

Also, I can see a need for desire in Intelligent Design. Humans must inherently desire after food, water, clothing, and so on. What was not intended was our free-will based changes on what is needed to be desired. For instance, cars, television, computers, etc. I think the ultimate need for desire is to desire Goodness.

Interesting idea.

Viveka wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:04 pm Intelligent Design as having a proper use for the body through its own design.

Also, I can see a need for desire in Intelligent Design. Humans must inherently desire after food, water, clothing, and so on. What was not intended was our free-will based changes on what is needed to be desired. For instance, cars, television, computers, etc. I think the ultimate need for desire is to desire Goodness.

Evolution explains everything just as well And doesn't add the extra condition of a Deity. "God did it" is not an explanation of anything, it's just an excuse for not explaining anything. Intelligent Design is just Creationism relabeled, and Creationism is just another way of saying "God did it".

There are too many design flaws for anyone to claim that there is an Intelligence involved in any design of nature, Evolution does explain everything.

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:51 pm

Viveka wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:04 pm Intelligent Design as having a proper use for the body through its own design.

Also, I can see a need for desire in Intelligent Design. Humans must inherently desire after food, water, clothing, and so on. What was not intended was our free-will based changes on what is needed to be desired. For instance, cars, television, computers, etc. I think the ultimate need for desire is to desire Goodness.

Evolution explains everything just as well And doesn't add the extra condition of a Deity. "God did it" is not an explanation of anything, it's just an excuse for not explaining anything. Intelligent Design is just Creationism relabeled, and Creationism is just another way of saying "God did it".

Not quite true. ID isn't always 'creatonism' as per the biblical or godly kind. ID includes the idea of Aliens or Praeternatural beings or what-have-you. Anything that is an Intelligent Designer.

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:54 pm There are too many design flaws for anyone to claim that there is an Intelligence involved in any design of nature, Evolution does explain everything.

Why can't Aliens make flaws? It doesn't have to be an all-powerful all-knowing creator God.

Viveka wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:56 pm

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:54 pm There are too many design flaws for anyone to claim that there is an Intelligence involved in any design of nature, Evolution does explain everything.

Why can't Aliens make flaws? It doesn't have to be an all-powerful all-knowing creator God.

This misses the point. What is your evidence that we are intelligently designed -- by god, aliens, or anything else?

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:54 pm There are too many design flaws for anyone to claim that there is an Intelligence involved in any design of nature.

That assumes that the present arrangement is reflective of the original design. If it's not, then the flaws are not part of the design at all, but of something that happened to the design, after the designing.

Viveka wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:56 pm Why can't Aliens make flaws? It doesn't have to be an all-powerful all-knowing creator God.

Aliens could. Aliens, like lesser "gods" are contingent beings.

But a Supreme Being, by definition, could not. If He could, then by definition, He would no longer be "the Greatest Conceivable Being," since a God that does not have flawed designs would be greater than one that does.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:10 pm

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:54 pm There are too many design flaws for anyone to claim that there is an Intelligence involved in any design of nature.

That assumes that the present arrangement is reflective of the original design. If it's not, then the flaws are not part of the design at all, but of something that happened to the design, after the designing.

Adam and Eve eating the apple? Because of a talking snake?

There was never an Adam and Eve -- a first man and a first woman. The earliest human population could not have been less than a thousand, give or take. This is a finding of evolution. Also, nature has always been red in tooth and claw -- no garden of eden, no idyllic prelapsarian state. This is mythology propounded by Bronze Age people who, I'd wager, did not literally believe it themselves. I suspect they were conscious that they were writing stories, for much the same reason that people write stories today.

Viveka wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:55 pm Not quite true. ID isn't always 'creatonism' as per the biblical or godly kind. ID includes the idea of Aliens or Praeternatural beings or what-have-you. Anything that is an Intelligent Designer.

Now you are redefining ID to suit yourself, ID already has a definition that is being used by Creationists to get their pseudoscience into the science classroom. The intelligence of ID is God and no amount of denial by you can change that, ID does not include Aliens or any other natural explanation.
The only Preternatural explanation used by ID and Creationists is God.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:12 pm

Viveka wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:56 pm Why can't Aliens make flaws? It doesn't have to be an all-powerful all-knowing creator God.

Aliens could. Aliens, like lesser "gods" are contingent beings.

But a Supreme Being, by definition, could not. If He could, then by definition, He would no longer be "the Greatest Conceivable Being," since a God that does not have flawed designs would be greater than one that does.

Oh, look, there we have the silly ontological argument trotted out again.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:10 pm

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:54 pm There are too many design flaws for anyone to claim that there is an Intelligence involved in any design of nature.

That assumes that the present arrangement is reflective of the original design. If it's not, then the flaws are not part of the design at all, but of something that happened to the design, after the designing.

Interesting reading.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Laryngeal_nerve

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0

https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2015/ ... human-eye/

http://www.asmscience.org/content/journ ... be.2.335.1

davidm wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:17 pm Oh, look, there we have the silly ontological argument trotted out again.

No; we don't even need that. It's just a definition. If you understand something different by the term "God," then you can always say what it is. But you can see that aliens and gods are, by definition, not "supreme" beings at all. They're contingent ones.

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:17 pm

Viveka wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:55 pm Not quite true. ID isn't always 'creatonism' as per the biblical or godly kind. ID includes the idea of Aliens or Praeternatural beings or what-have-you. Anything that is an Intelligent Designer.

Now you are redefining ID to suit yourself, ID already has a definition that is being used by Creationists to get their pseudoscience into the science classroom. The intelligence of ID is God and no amount of denial by you can change that, ID does not include Aliens or any other natural explanation.
The only Preternatural explanation used by ID and Creationists is God.

I am not redefining ID to suit myself. Just read Behe's writings! And creatonism is ID, yes, but ID is not creationism.

Viveka wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:12 pm I am not redefining ID to suit myself. Just read Behe's writings! And creatonism is ID, yes, but ID is not creationism.

Behe writes Bull Shit, and is not an authority on anything real. ID is what it is, and neither you nor Behe can change it.