Theory of 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

Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Various issues » Is it reasonable?

Is it reasonable?

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Is it reasonable? on Sun Sep 26, 2010 6:55 pm

Firstly, I'm a naturalist, with no exceptions, and I've found that a great many people do not appear to understand why or how a completely natural universe would be possible without supernatural interferences, however as there has never been anything that has been demonstrated to be supernatural and that most phenomenon that have been claimed to be supernatural have demonstrable natural explanations, I choose to believe that the universe is completely natural. This is my philosophy.

I am curious, however, do you find this stance reasonable. If not, why?

Last edited by Yrost on Sun Sep 26, 2010 11:58 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile

2 Re: Is it reasonable? on Sun Sep 26, 2010 10:54 pm

Interesting reasoning, but we have demonstrated and explained Abiogenesis and morality too. We know that morality of a person is not affected by religion or lack thereof and we know that being good because someone will hurt you if you don't, isn't good. People should be good because they wish good upon others and I know that Christians, Muslims, Jews and all other religions do good not because they expect a reward or think they're being watched, but because they are good.

We don't know if the universe had a beginning or not, there is evidence for both ends of that debate. As for fine-tuning, you have to realise that there are billions of planets in just our gallaxy and billions of gallaxies in our universe. Arguing that all of this was made for sole benefit of one of those planets isn't convincing or profound. You're assuming that the goal of the universe was life, naturalism assumes no goals.

Lastly, miracles and religious experiences take place among all religious sects, denominations and peoples, regardless of how contradictory their beliefs maybe or if they are theistic or non-theistic (godless) religions (like Buddhism).

This of course does not mean that god does not exist, but in my opinion it does make atheism a reasonable position. Although, I completely approve of people that follow which ever route that their life experiences and feelings tell them is right. I'm only asking if one could empathise with my position in which I have no reason to believe in anything other than naturalism and ask if others would see it as reasonable from my point of view.

View user profile

3 Re: Is it reasonable? on Mon Sep 27, 2010 5:31 am

But proteins are catalytic agents, RNA has the capability of autocatalysis. Proteins would not be needed for the development of the first life forms.

And even if there is a god, you'd simply not do those bad things because someone would punish you for doing them or because you think someone said they were bad, this is still subjective.

Again, we don't know if the universe is finite or infinite. Science is still working on the answer, physicists did once think that the universe appeared finite, but other phenomenon have led them to believe that the universe is a flat and infinite. No one can be sure of the right answer at the moment...

Nevertheless, I don't see how fine-tuning can be used as an argument for god's existence unless you assume that god is limited by natural laws. To say that P had to be a certain way to cause C is tautological, when P was a cause of C. When you accept fine-tuning, you're accepting the naturalism of the universe and what the causes and effects are. Whereas in the presence of an omnipotent god, literally anything is possible.

View user profile

4 Re: Is it reasonable? on Mon Sep 27, 2010 6:52 pm

elshamah888 wrote:i don't think this is true :

In summary, RNA can perform only a few minor functional roles and even then usually as the consequence of researchers intentionally ‘engineering’ the RNA catalyst in question. Even in the face of extreme difficulty, most neo-Darwinians remain convinced that the RNA world must have existed, subsequently paving the way for the DNA-protein world. If it did not, the chicken-and-egg paradox -- from a materialistic perspective -- cannot be resolved.

Autocatalysis has been tested in the laboratory and proven. RNA can work as an enzyme and a ribozyme. Current predictions are based on the existence of protobionts, which need neither proteins nor RNA enzymes to begin the evolutionary process. Just simple thermodynamics.

elshamah888 wrote:have you read the thread i linked to ?

How do you explain where guilt comes from? How do you explain why all people in the world have this feeling called a conscience that seems to tell them that something is wrong, such as murder. How come people feel a heavy weight on their emotions called guilt when they do something wrong, such as lie and steal, and the best thing to do to take the weight off themselves is to tell the truth and/or ask for forgiveness. If God doesn't exist, then how could you rationally explain all that?

But morality is a memetic and not inherent; we learn what is right and wrong, we are not born with it. We simply wouldn't exist if we taught our children that killing any person anywhere was good whenever beneficial.

we don't know it in a absolute sense. But all evidence , scientific, and philosophical, indicates so:

The second premise of the kalam cosmological argument is supported by both philosophical and scientific arguments. Arguments under the former category involve showing that the existence of an actually infinite number of things is metaphysically impossible. If the universe never began to exist, then its past duration would be actually infinite. [5] Since actual infinities cannot exist, then the past duration of the universe must have been finite, implying that the universe must have begun to exist. Even if one grants that it is possible for an actual infinite to exist, it still cannot be formed by successive addition, and henceforth the past duration of the universe must be finite. From a scientific perspective, the beginning of the universe is strongly supported by modern big bang cosmology. The proponent of the KCA thus finds himself comfortably seated in the midst of mainstream cosmology. Combined, these two reasons lend strong support to the truth of the second premise. Additionally, an eternal universe is ruled out by the second law of thermodynamics.

Before I move on, I just want to offer some definitions of the different types of infinity lest my opponent choose to attack that particular argument.

Potential infinities are sets that are constantly increasing toward infinity as a limit, but never attain infinite status. A more accurate description would be to say that their members are indefinite. An actual infinite, by contrast, is a set x that contains a subset x' that is equivalent to x. "The crucial difference between an infinite set and an indefinite collection would be that the former is conceived as a determinate whole actually possessing an infinite number of members, while the latter never actually attains infinity, although it increases perpetually. We have, then, three types of collection that we must keep conceptually distinct: finite, infinite, and indefinite."

There is actually no scientific evidence that indicates anything about the conditions before the big bang. Using the big bang to support any theory on what happened before it is fallacious.

Modern cosmologists currently use the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker model to demonstrate that the universe is flat and spatially infinite. What problem do you have with infinity exactly?

i don't think so. God's Omnipotence must be defined:

The claim that God can do anything has been the subject of a number of qualifications. First, many affirm the biblical view that God cannot do what is morally contrary to his nature. Similar to Anselm (Proslogion 7), Aquinas says that God cannot sin because he is omnipotent, since sin is a falling short of perfection (Summa Theologica, Ia.25.3). Nelson Pike says that it is logically possible for God to sin but he would not do what is against his nature. Aquinas also says that God cannot do other things that corporeal beings can do. And, he cannot do what is logically impossible, such as make a square circle. Descartes is one of the few to hold the contrary view, that the laws of mathematics and logic are subject to the will of God (Descartes’ Conversation with Burman, 22, 90).

So you believe in a god with logical limits Smile

I genuinely like that! It's definitely more realistic. How limited is your god exactly? Lets say for instance that some of these constants were not finely tuned as they are, would that make it impossible for him to create life?

View user profile

Sponsored content

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

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