My position doesn't presume an intelligent designer. My position is that there's evidence in nature for an intelligent designer.Agreed.One of the mistakes made by theists Is to attach human attributes to their gods as they attach human attributes to nature.
Intelligence and consciousness are the two human attributes I suggested are shared by the Creator. They're non-physical attributes. Their presence in the universe suggests their presence in a Creator. I've argued nothing more than that.
Okay. You've identified my view as fallacious. You haven't presented support for that position.The statement : “Resolved: The universe exists, therefore it was created, and therefore it had a creator.” Is a classic fallacy.
Similarly, the statement: “The universe contains complexity, sophistication, intelligence, and consciousness; therefore, it's creator is conscious and intelligent. There is nothing in modern science that disproves this”
This is another classic fallacy used by theists in that they insist they are correct until proven wrong.
Yes, you are. However, it's not my standard but the one demanded of me here. I just turned it around to give those who's views differ from mine the opportunity to advance their positions.Well, I can counter the “prove it isn’t” challenge with “yes, science disproves you claim. Disprove it”. I am using your standards of disproof. Since I have disproof of your claims, it falls to you to disprove my disproof.
I’m just holding you to your own “standard”, such as it is.
It doesn't. Nothing I've posted here presupposes that at all.All of your testimony presupposes that your god is the true god.
I've intentionally avoided the use of "God" as much as I could in favor of "Intelligent Creator" and similar terms, trying to restrict "God" to when we've discussed Biblical morality and then only in the context of Scripture, which obviously, presupposed the existence of the Scriptural God.
Most of what I've seen in this thread presupposes the non-existence of a Creator Intelligence and offers no argument to support that supposition.
Indeed. I contend that none of that disproves the existence of an intelligent creator. No one has yet shown otherwise.Big bang, evolution, science ... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars.
Not one example of evidence for an intelligent creator force that I've given has been from personal experience. All have been observed, real-world phenomena as documented by credentialed scientists.the examples devolve quickly into personal experience
Well said! That's precisely what I've been trying to accomplish here.Let the new revelation illuminate the old, cast aside prejudices, the truth can stand the closest scrutiny.
I'm quite sure I've already spoken here of a living and imminent Deity that guides the evolution of human understanding. You assume all theists are the same when there's actually a breadth of viewpoints.But theists are the ones who believe in a less or not-at-all fluidity of their worldviews. And if anything aggravates me, it's theists who do not realize their "immutable word" -- in reality -- is just as likely to be changed as any tenet of science.
Thought I'd already addressed that. Maybe I didn't.You find cohesion into assigning to the ultimate level a personable, intelligent being who authored things to be as they are. The flaw I have with that faith is that it turns around on itself:
You are arguing that intelligence and order cannot come out of nature, and so it needs to have come from an ordered/intelligent metaphysical being. But you premise collapses from its assertion because you are left with having to account for the intelligence that has sprung up out of nature in any event. You are saying your problem is solved by your problem.
I'm not arguing that intelligence or order cannot come out of nature; I'm arguing that nature's order and intelligence is evidence of a creator and that the presence of intelligence, consciousness, and mind in the universe can't -- at least, as yet -- be accounted for by natural selection or any biological or physical process.
By definition, the creator intelligence didn't spring up out of nature. By definition, it is the creator of nature, matter, energy, and time and, therefore, cannot be of any of those things. Asking who created God or asserting that it takes matter energy, and time to create anything so there's no creator of matter, energy, and time is a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire "God" concept.
You've never said that I was wrong for holding my belief, nor have I seen you do so with others. That's appreciated and I've tried to be equally as courteous.Now in fact that is totally fine with me-- I'm not here to tell you, you are wrong about embracing that belief, anymore than I am wrong embracing the fact that it's not needed that there be a "designer".
If intelligence is at the core of the universe, it supports (doesn't prove but supports) the contention that there is or was an intelligence that created it.The second problem with the assertion is that even if intelligence is at the core, that doesn't support a contention of a gods or any sort of eternal being. It still doesn't account for an approachable, loving, involved god, nor does it account for the Judeo-Christian gods-- it could be any number of gods, or ones that haven't been con-or-perceived yet, or it could have been a "god" with a limited lifespan (and is now dead). So still the atheist has cause (good cause in fact) to not embrace the theistic paradigm.
I respect you and enjoy talking with you about this, Hollie, so please don't take it as a negative comment about you or your opinion when I say that you haven't addressed my argument other than to contradict it, restate portions of of your position that don't really address it, and misrepresent the views I've expressed.
Ultimately, I can’t address the theistic position that presumes one or more gods / intelligent designers and requires that others disprove such entities.
Writing for myself only, I don’t presuppose the non-existence of a “creator Intelligence”. The positive assertion of something falls to the presenter to support the claim. So, when the statement is made: “therefore, it's creator is conscious and intelligent”, there is an obligation of the part of the claimant to provide a supported, testable argument.
...
There has never been a discovery about the natural world which suggested a supernatural cause. I don't have any reason to presuppose that intelligence and a sentient sense of “self” has sprung up out of nature, I accept the evidence that existence has naturalistic underpinnings.
I haven't asked anyone to disprove that there's an intelligent designer. I've asked for a refutation of my assertion that there's evidence in nature for an intelligent designer.
There are an ample number of discoveries about the natural world which suggest a supernatural cause. I've noted several and supported them with examples of observed, tested, and documented phenomena, and included references from credentialed scientists to those and more examples. This evidence is reason not to conclude that existence is simply a natural process.
If there is evidence for an intelligent designer, why not present that evidence? It’s not the role of a disbeliever to disprove what is not supported. I have never seen such “observed, tested, and documented phenomena” that point to a supernatural designer. How would anyone test for supernatural design, designed by a supernatural designer? Can you link to some peer reviewed data?
How do we examine the hierarchy of supernatural designers who designed the subordinate designer? I think you can see I’m being facetious here but why presume one intelligent designer when none are needed and a logical presumption to an intelligent designer is a hierarchical structure of designers.
We know that gods have tended to breed when mankind needed explanations for natural phenomenon (but had none). We know that various cultures have invented various gods / designers who controlled various aspects of existence. Can you identify what separates and makes preeminent the western versions of gods / creators vs. the others?