🕯️ Traditions Does God Exist?

[fabbriche]

This shows that you can't. All you can say is that ID is a pseudoscience and I am oblivious about it despite the fact that I am asking you to present here why ID is pseudoscience case by case and we may analyze.

Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience because it is completely unfounded but is presented as science and directly coming for the veracity of evolution. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection itself contradicts the idea of design in nature.

13.8 billion years of evolution to be able to produce life somewhere in the vast universe which all had to go through countless unfathomable gruesomeness and suffering to get to where we are today SINGLEHANDEDLY refutes the idea of intelligent design in nature. If you understand natural selection which is the widely accepted mechanism of evolution you'd know that it is incompatible with the idea of intelligent design.

 

[fabbriche]

Well of course we should go to the specifics of who are these supposed atheists, scientists or philosophers included in your so called philosophical consensus that we may analyze here their all-knowing irrefutable arguments.

If you can't or don't have time, I am safe to say that you argue so incompletely and lacks depth. If we are to argue, suppose to be let us dig deeper into the minds of these people and analyze their thoughts...it is not enough say that atheist Abrakadabra says so and so and hence the truth of atheism is final. I dont think that is the way to arrive to the truth or complete your claims here.

Your claim that atheist even dominates most philosophical disciplines is false. The only truth is that atheism dominates its own philosophical discipline called metaphysical naturalism which this term even is ironic due to the fact that nowhere in material reality explains itself but only by means of philosophication or metaphysical (contrast from the term metaphysical naturalism) exposition. Metaphysics, logic, ethics, mathematics, ontology, science, philosophy in general do not speak directly that God doesnt exist.nor these field of intellectual disciplines speak alone about atheism. Exam of this is Metaphysics where God is one of its foremost subject.

You admit that science can neither prove or disprove God which is the true case. We can only utilize the truths in science to affirm or deny God's existence. Furthermore, we only disprove one's limited claim and not the totality of all knowledge or of infinity of truths. If from the beginning you were more specific about the debunking of the Christian God or at least the Christian understanding of God and not God Himself/herself/itself (a God..an all in all Transcendent God that we have so little or no real knowledge at all). In this case then, we cant logically say that this God is disproved or cant exist. It is more logical to say, no idea or stay in silence.

Studies do not ask for the names of individual philosophers being polled (that's not how random sampling in polls work) but the general views and positions of, and trends in the whole philosophical profession. Multiple independent studies confirm the strong atheistic position in philosophy and hard sciences, none of which confirms the religiosity of academics. You'd be hard-pressed to find religious academics except in religiously-related disciplines such as Philosophy of Religion and biblical studies. Religion and education/intelligence are negatively correlated. The more you know the less likely you believe especially antiquated ideas like gods and religion.

Science cannot prove the negative. It can only prove the existence of actual, real objects or entities. Real things leave traces of their existence regardless of how far removed they are from the present. There are evidence that the Big Bang happened 13.8 billion years ago, earth formed out of cosmic matter 4.5 billion years ago, life formed on earth without supernatural causes 4 billion years ago, dinosaurs went extinct 55 million years ago.

There's no evidence that a god created the universe in 7 days, humans came from ashes, Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses existed, a global flooding ever occurred, Jews were held captive in Egypt, the exodus and miraculous parting of the sea happened, Jesus rose from the dead and all other fantastical biblical claims and as well as any other religious miracles in history which makes the "Christian God" even more irrational than Aristotle's already outdated and discredited concept of the Unmoved Mover. Something SO significant like "God" could hardly be overlooked. The supposedly ultimate creator of the universe would not escape our attention but the fact that philosophers have investigated the case of god for thousands of years yet yielded with absolutely nothing to remotely suggest that such a being exists could only possibly, logically, rationally, justifiably mean that god does not exist. An "all-powerful god" who doesn't leave footprints of itself anywhere that manifest in reality so that logical and rational people could eventually discover doesn't want to be known (see the argument from divine hiddenness) and is essentially indistinguishable from unreal.

Believing in the existence of something requires valid justification otherwise your belief is irrational and most likely false. In the absence of evidence, it is always non-belief that is the most reasonable and justified position to hold. Unless theists can present evidence of god (since the onus of proof lies on them making the positive claim) the existence of god is just as plausible as the existence of fairies, leprechauns, unicorns and other mythical creatures and non-belief in such is perfectly reasonable.

The idea of a god or the supernatural would have never arisen if primitive people had access to the vast library of scientific and philosophical knowledge we have today and the very idea would have never persisted till this day if only average people are aware of the actual (dead) state of the theistic case in philosophy and understand proper science.

 

[bandwagon]

Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience because it is completely unfounded but is presented as science and directly coming for the veracity of evolution. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection itself contradicts the idea of design in nature.

13.8 billion years of evolution to be able to produce life somewhere in the vast universe which all had to go through countless unfathomable gruesomeness and suffering to get to where we are today SINGLEHANDEDLY refutes the idea of intelligent design in nature. If you understand natural selection which is the widely accepted mechanism of evolution you'd know that it is incompatible with the idea of intelligent design.

First of all I want to say that you have little understanding about the Intelligent Design (ID for short) Theory. When you claim that ID is.completely unfounded, you must support or back your claim. Otherwise, you speak incompletely or oblivious to the truth. You are just parroting ideas read fron secondary materials.

Let me give you an example why ID is a scientific theory.

1. ID employs methods just like other sciences to conclude that features of the universe or biological complexity are best explained by intelligent cause.Design in the universe can be inferred by studying certain objects. Intelligent agent/s produce complex and specified information.

2. It follows the basic scientific method. Observation>Hypothesis>Experiment>Conclusion

This is what ID theorists do. They dig deeper into reality, they do research and experiment. They organize their arguments logically just as other scientists or theorists in other sciences. You are dismissing an equally competing theory in a superficial manner and trying to unearth it with substanceless arguments.

Evolution is not incompatible with ID again FYI. If we mean evolution here as change over time. Things to evolve but according to ID theories these changes is not unguided. According to the theory Things like the stuffs of the universe and biological complexity evolved or directed by intelligence. What ID contend is neo-Darwinism's natural selection where they argue that evolution is unguided and purposeless where things just becone organized by natural selection. This where the debate really begins. Your understanding of ID is so misguided.

 

[bandwagon]

Studies do not ask for the names of individual philosophers being polled (that's not how random sampling in polls work) but the general views and positions of, and trends in the whole philosophical profession. Multiple independent studies confirm the strong atheistic position in philosophy and hard sciences, none of which confirms the religiosity of academics. You'd be hard-pressed to find religious academics except in religiously-related disciplines such as Philosophy of Religion and biblical studies. Religion and education/intelligence are negatively correlated. The more you know the less likely you believe especially antiquated ideas like gods and religion.

Science cannot prove the negative. It can only prove the existence of actual, real objects or entities. Real things leave traces of their existence regardless of how far removed they are from the present. There are evidence that the Big Bang happened 13.8 billion years ago, earth formed out of cosmic matter 4.5 billion years ago, life formed on earth without supernatural causes 4 billion years ago, dinosaurs went extinct 55 million years ago.

There's no evidence that a god created the universe in 7 days, humans came from ashes, Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses existed, a global flooding ever occurred, Jews were held captive in Egypt, the exodus and miraculous parting of the sea happened, Jesus rose from the dead and all other fantastical biblical claims and as well as any other religious miracles in history which makes the "Christian God" even more irrational than Aristotle's already outdated and discredited concept of the Unmoved Mover. Something SO significant like "God" could hardly be overlooked. The supposedly ultimate creator of the universe would not escape our attention but the fact that philosophers have investigated the case of god for thousands of years yet yielded with absolutely nothing to remotely suggest that such a being exists could only possibly, logically, rationally, justifiably mean that god does not exist. An "all-powerful god" who doesn't leave footprints of itself anywhere that manifest in reality so that logical and rational people could eventually discover doesn't want to be known (see the argument from divine hiddenness) and is essentially indistinguishable from unreal.

Believing in the existence of something requires valid justification otherwise your belief is irrational and most likely false. In the absence of evidence, it is always non-belief that is the most reasonable and justified position to hold. Unless theists can present evidence of god (since the onus of proof lies on them making the positive claim) the existence of god is just as plausible as the existence of fairies, leprechauns, unicorns and other mythical creatures and non-belief in such is perfectly reasonable.

The idea of a god or the supernatural would have never arisen if primitive people had access to the vast library of scientific and philosophical knowledge we have today and the very idea would have never persisted till this day if only average people are aware of the actual (dead) state of the theistic case in philosophy and understand proper science.

It is essential in a philosophical discussion if we want a rigorous or analytic result to remove doubts or establish our claims as irrefutable.

Im going to ask you..whose studies are you referring to? Are these studies surely unbiased? Why not present them here that we.may rigorously analyze? Why not not? If you can't, you are fabricating based from your presuppositions albeit, unsupported.

Again, bandwagon or appeal to the many or appeal to authority fallacy just reverberate in your arguments. Quality of thoughts or the truth has nothing to do how much or less hold it. Your philosophical consensus is a dream. The fact that not everybody agrees.with you or the atheists or atudies you are referwncing shows otherwise.

You are takng for granted age old arguments as if these arguments were the totality of the theism. Spaghetti monster, zeus, adam eve, 7days creation, thor, thunder etc etc as if these are the only things in the arsenal of the theist philosopher. Let us know that we.debunk, dismiss, or argue these theists relative to their understanding and not of the totality of things or things to come. Modern theist knows scientific theories. Some of them are even great scientists. I am sure that if you argue wirh them, they will laugh at you, I mean your age-old weapon. No that does not apply to the modern mind of the theists. These people are like other people. The atheists have no privilege to things or knowledge. The debate rage on. The atheists have no exclusive ownership of the truths. There is no philosophical consensus in the philosophy of God's existece save that of philosophical terminologies.


Note: im writing and sending here my articles through mobile..it could be much better using my laptop that i had addressed, analyzed and deconstruct your articles sentence by sentence.

 

[fabbriche]

First of all I want to say that you have little understanding about the Intelligent Design (ID for short) Theory. When you claim that ID is.completely unfounded, you must support or back your claim. Otherwise, you speak incompletely or oblivious to the truth. You are just parroting ideas read fron secondary materials.

Let me give you an example why ID is a scientific theory.

1. ID employs methods just like other sciences to conclude that features of the universe or biological complexity are best explained by intelligent cause.Design in the universe can be inferred by studying certain objects. Intelligent agent/s produce complex and specified information.

2. It follows the basic scientific method. Observation>Hypothesis>Experiment>Conclusion

This is what ID theorists do. They dig deeper into reality, they do research and experiment. They organize their arguments logically just as other scientists or theorists in other sciences. You are dismissing an equally competing theory in a superficial manner and trying to unearth it with substanceless arguments.

Evolution is not incompatible with ID again FYI. If we mean evolution here as change over time. Things to evolve but according to ID theories these changes is not unguided. According to the theory Things like the stuffs of the universe and biological complexity evolved or directed by intelligence. What ID contend is neo-Darwinism's natural selection where they argue that evolution is unguided and purposeless where things just becone organized by natural selection. This where the debate really begins. Your understanding of ID is so misguided.

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, not even a legitimate hypothesis. It is a pseudoscientific religious idea, a rebranding of creationism that has already been dismissed entirely in academia (along with every other religious idea theists have tried to advance and reconcile with science) and its teaching is BANNED in science classes. Literally no one in the scientific community supports Intelligent Design outside of the Christian extremist states in America. Intelligent design has the same merit in science as flat earth theory.

Christian fundamentalists have tried to reconcile their unfounded religious beliefs with science and repeatedly rebranded them by inventing vague and meaningless terminologies everytime their older beliefs get rejected by the scientific community only for the new ones to get rejected again wholesale.

There is no debate on evolution and its correct mechanism because the issue is already settled by evidence. Natural Selection is the only substantiated and universally accepted mechanism of evolution which is itself inherently ATHEISTIC. All available evidence from the fields of cosmology, cosmogony to astrophysics and biology support Atheism over theism. There is no such thing as theistic evolution. There is no such thing as an intelligent entity that guides evolution. Nothing controls evolution. It happens on its own.

The scientific theory of evolution does not support any traditional theistic beliefs. It is a much more powerful, sophisticated process than any magical ideas ignorant primitive religious people have come up with to explain humanity and the world. People who claim their religion is compatible with evolution don't understand proper science at all and are not updated with the progress and developments in evolutionary biology and the general consensus in the scientific community. This is why it's important to follow the expert consensus because so many false ideas have been interjected into legitimate theories by ideologues in desperate attempts to salvage their outdated and discredited religious beliefs and freely circulate as facts in the internet and are easily believed by gullible people.

 

[fabbriche]

It is essential in a philosophical discussion if we want a rigorous or analytic result to remove doubts or establish our claims as irrefutable.

Im going to ask you..whose studies are you referring to? Are these studies surely unbiased? Why not present them here that we.may rigorously analyze? Why not not? If you can't, you are fabricating based from your presuppositions albeit, unsupported.

Again, bandwagon or appeal to the many or appeal to authority fallacy just reverberate in your arguments. Quality of thoughts or the truth has nothing to do how much or less hold it. Your philosophical consensus is a dream. The fact that not everybody agrees.with you or the atheists or atudies you are referwncing shows otherwise.

You are takng for granted age old arguments as if these arguments were the totality of the theism. Spaghetti monster, zeus, adam eve, 7days creation, thor, thunder etc etc as if these are the only things in the arsenal of the theist philosopher. Let us know that we.debunk, dismiss, or argue these theists relative to their understanding and not of the totality of things or things to come. Modern theist knows scientific theories. Some of them are even great scientists. I am sure that if you argue wirh them, they will laugh at you, I mean your age-old weapon. No that does not apply to the modern mind of the theists. These people are like other people. The atheists have no privilege to things or knowledge. The debate rage on. The atheists have no exclusive ownership of the truths. There is no philosophical consensus in the philosophy of God's existece save that of philosophical terminologies.


Note: im writing and sending here my articles through mobile..it could be much better using my laptop that i had addressed, analyzed and deconstruct your articles sentence by sentence.

The ONLY philosophers who disagree on the strong atheist consensus in academic philosophy are philosophers of religion. Philosophy of Religion stands in contrast to other philosophical subdisciplines where it's the only such field that is still majority theist despite the atheist consensus in every other subdiscipline due to selection bias. Theists enter the PoR subdiscipline moreso than atheists PoR distort the general consensus.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

This should make us take the prevalence of theists in Philosophy of Religion with a grain of salt. When the majority, expert opinion from other areas disagrees with the conclusions coming out of Philosophy of Religion, then it only shows that Philosophy of Religion is a problematic area. It depends on other philosophical subdisciplines to form its theistic conclusion but actually ignore the conclusions coming out of those subdisciplines it depend on.

The theistic position requires commitments to various philosophical viewpoints (ex: A-theory of time, non-physicalism of the mind, substance dualism, metaphysical non-naturalism, etc.) that have already fallen drastically out of favor in the last 300 years. Support for these positions dwindled in academic philosophy because specialists in those areas engaged with those points, found them lacking, and pursued better, more supported alternatives that then rose to prominence. The dismissal of these supporting viewpoints undermines theistic arguments so theistic philosophers must commit themselves to what are now seen as less tenable positions to continue to hold their theism. The critical point here is you must ignore the majority opinion of specialists in several subdisciplines if you want to trust the majority opinion of philosophers of religion on the existence of God.

Also, you don't understand how expert consensus works. You're not going to get 100% consensus on anything, not in history, not even in science. Even the theory of evolution, which is the most substantiated theory in science, has 97% acceptance rate in the scientific community not 100%. No matter what qualifications or credentials professionals have there will always be those who will readily toss out facts, evidence and consensus that contradict and blindly follow their preconceived beliefs. But when upwards of 70% of professionals in a given profession hold a certain view, the view that they agree upon on a particular issue relevant to their profession is pretty much considered settled.

This is why, again, it's important to know what the expert consensus in philosophy is. And the Philpapers data I mentioned earlier reveal just that.

 

[bandwagon]

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, not even a legitimate hypothesis. It is a pseudoscientific religious idea, a rebranding of creationism that has already been dismissed entirely in academia (along with every other religious idea theists have tried to advance and reconcile with science) and its teaching is BANNED in science classes. Literally no one in the scientific community supports Intelligent Design outside of the Christian extremist states in America. Intelligent design has the same merit in science as flat earth theory.

Christian fundamentalists have tried to reconcile their unfounded religious beliefs with science and repeatedly rebranded them by inventing vague and meaningless terminologies everytime their older beliefs get rejected by the scientific community only for the new ones to get rejected again wholesale.

There is no debate on evolution and its correct mechanism because the issue is already settled by evidence. Natural Selection is the only substantiated and universally accepted mechanism of evolution which is itself inherently ATHEISTIC. All available evidence from the fields of cosmology, cosmogony to astrophysics and biology support Atheism over theism. There is no such thing as theistic evolution. There is no such thing as an intelligent entity that guides evolution. Nothing controls evolution. It happens on its own.

The scientific theory of evolution does not support any traditional theistic beliefs. It is a much more powerful, sophisticated process than any magical ideas ignorant primitive religious people have come up with to explain humanity and the world. People who claim their religion is compatible with evolution don't understand proper science at all and are not updated with the progress and developments in evolutionary biology and the general consensus in the scientific community. This is why it's important to follow the expert consensus because so many false ideas have been interjected into legitimate theories by ideologues in desperate attempts to salvage their outdated and discredited religious beliefs and freely circulate as facts in the internet and are easily believed by gullible people.

This is.not the case. Your assumption is thoroughly misguided. ID isn't creationism. I will respond to you in details when Im not busy.

Note: im not an ID proponent. I just believe that let us all appeal to reason and/or logic when presenting competing sides.

 

[bandwagon]

The ONLY philosophers who disagree on the strong atheist consensus in academic philosophy are philosophers of religion. Philosophy of Religion stands in contrast to other philosophical subdisciplines where it's the only such field that is still majority theist despite the atheist consensus in every other subdiscipline due to selection bias. Theists enter the PoR subdiscipline moreso than atheists PoR distort the general consensus.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

This should make us take the prevalence of theists in Philosophy of Religion with a grain of salt. When the majority, expert opinion from other areas disagrees with the conclusions coming out of Philosophy of Religion, then it only shows that Philosophy of Religion is a problematic area. It depends on other philosophical subdisciplines to form its theistic conclusion but actually ignore the conclusions coming out of those subdisciplines it depend on.

The theistic position requires commitments to various philosophical viewpoints (ex: A-theory of time, non-physicalism of the mind, substance dualism, metaphysical non-naturalism, etc.) that have already fallen drastically out of favor in the last 300 years. Support for these positions dwindled in academic philosophy because specialists in those areas engaged with those points, found them lacking, and pursued better, more supported alternatives that then rose to prominence. The dismissal of these supporting viewpoints undermines theistic arguments so theistic philosophers must commit themselves to what are now seen as less tenable positions to continue to hold their theism. The critical point here is you must ignore the majority opinion of specialists in several subdisciplines if you want to trust the majority opinion of philosophers of religion on the existence of God.

Also, you don't understand how expert consensus works. You're not going to get 100% consensus on anything, not in history, not even in science. Even the theory of evolution, which is the most substantiated theory in science, has 97% acceptance rate in the scientific community not 100%. No matter what qualifications or credentials professionals have there will always be those who will readily toss out facts, evidence and consensus that contradict and blindly follow their preconceived beliefs. But when upwards of 70% of professionals in a given profession hold a certain view, the view that they agree upon on a particular issue relevant to their profession is pretty much considered settled.

This is why, again, it's important to know what the expert consensus in philosophy is. And the Philpapers data I mentioned earlier reveal just that.

This too is false or incomplete. A philosher of religion can be also a philosopher of anything. A philosopher of religion need not to be a theist or atheist. Any thinkibg human being can philosophoze about religion. Your rhetorics which is quite an old antic against a competing philosophy has been exhaustively dealt with. You redirect me to quotes or weblinks which say so and so and so which in fact, I can also redirect you to quotes or weblinks arguing otherwise..I suggest say it in your own words or create your own original philosoohy. Those ideas you presented here are just repititious and already exhaustively analyzed and addressed by th competing side..

Again, I will try to address in details btw just too busy in some areas in life. Have a good time.

 

[bossdavs]

DNA yan lng research mo para sagot sa tanong mo

 

[chanyanihh]

dapat pinutok kunalnag sa kumot