tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post1636822883923330765..comments2023-10-25T10:45:54.660-05:00Comments on Answers in Genesis BUSTED!: Who Designed the Designer?AIGBustedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03232781356086767207noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-13132318416518371302010-01-18T10:49:12.944-06:002010-01-18T10:49:12.944-06:00I knew you would come around...lol. I thought you...I knew you would come around...lol. I thought you were way off on your post thinking that every explanation needed an explanation. <br /><br />The problem is that Darwinian evolution predicts the formation of Flagellum and the eye by mindless causes which on its face is rather absurd. The God hypothesis argues that life is designed by a mind which basically put it together either through natural causes which were directed or superintended by an intelligent agent.<br /><br />The burden of proof is on the Darwinian to make their case; however, since Darwinian evolution has never been observed, it is much more rational to believe that a mind is responsible for the design that we see.D.L. Folkenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14088685389758373359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-30052103639241310982010-01-16T12:40:16.027-06:002010-01-16T12:40:16.027-06:00I've pretty much given up trying to see how mu...I've pretty much given up trying to see how much "common sense" there is with Luke. Sorry, but when you write this: "That may be sneaky, but it's not logically inconsistent, and it doesn't allow the objection you press against the theist." I see a distinct lack of sense (or else your arguments are not really based on reality, but are simple thought experiments).<br /><br />Whether it is logically inconsistent is irrelevant - the argument is crap. The objection stands because they (a) have no leg to stand on trying to limit it to physical objects, and (b) they have no evidence. <br /><br />If they want to press the physical aspect, ask them what about minds - are they solely physical. If yes, then does God have a mind? Must be physical then, or it's special pleading. If mind is not physical, then how do they explain that - if they want to claim a designer, then it falls under the same argument they are making - they can't limit it to physical things.<br /><br />As to the evidence, we're still waiting for any. Arguments without evidence are useless. Not useless, they can help us form hypotheses, but without evidence to support them, we have no reason to consider them to be real.<br /><br />But asking for evidence and consistency from theists is like looking for invisible pink dragons. Frustrating, and we're still waiting for both to appear.Badger3khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04008838430274720250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-69031306906169119612010-01-16T12:07:29.729-06:002010-01-16T12:07:29.729-06:00"I don't think many theists are naive eno..."I don't think many theists are naive enough to assert that complexity requires an explanation."<br /><br />Of course they are. Complexity, in the sense that I discussed, is considered in need of explanation by people like WIlliam Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne. A fine tuned universe (if it can be shown to require fine tuning) would involve several constants being set to precise values. Pretty much everyone would agree that something like that needs an explanation beyond mere chance.<br /><br />"They are more likely to assert something more like 'Physical complexity requires an explanation,' which of course gets God off the hook. That may be sneaky, but it's not logically inconsistent, and it doesn't allow the objection you press against the theist."<br /><br />But the reasons that physical complexity require explanation are the same reasons that 'spiritual' or 'mental' complexity require explanation.AIGBustedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03232781356086767207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-80446233153080782022010-01-16T10:48:20.392-06:002010-01-16T10:48:20.392-06:00Ryan,
As I wrote before, I don't think many t...Ryan,<br /><br />As I wrote before, I don't think many theists are naive enough to assert that complexity requires an explanation. They are more likely to assert something more like "Physical complexity requires an explanation," which of course gets God off the hook. That may be sneaky, but it's not logically inconsistent, and it doesn't allow the objection you press against the theist.Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12968634190280933116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-75368021271931348162010-01-16T10:27:52.625-06:002010-01-16T10:27:52.625-06:00Luke,
My point was that when atheists ask "W...Luke,<br /><br />My point was that when atheists ask "Who Designed the Designer?" they aren't presuming that explanations require explanations as much as they are pointing out the inconsistency of postulating a really complex thing (God) to explain another really complex thing while insisting that God doesn't have an explanation but also insisting that complex things must have a designer.<br /><br />I mean, if complex things require design, and God is a complex thing, then it follows that God had a designer. And that's the point of the question. God cannot (by definition) have a designer, but he needs to have one if the theist is going to be consistent.AIGBustedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03232781356086767207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-70914691321288778302010-01-16T09:34:19.216-06:002010-01-16T09:34:19.216-06:00Ryan,
You write about how the theist is not allow...Ryan,<br /><br />You write about how the theist is not allowed to posit God without justification. That is EXACTLY what I said atheists need to complain about. They should NOT complain that God himself isn't explained, but rather that the theist can't give an account of why "God did it" is a good explanation.Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12968634190280933116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-16201399987769444482010-01-16T07:04:33.340-06:002010-01-16T07:04:33.340-06:00This is exactly right. Just as Luke missed the mar...This is exactly right. Just as Luke missed the mark on Dawkins, the same is true of his critique of the atheist argument in general, and for the same reason.<br /><br />If any atheist really holds that an explanation requires further explanation, that is indeed a wrongheaded. But if you take the full range of statements being made by any particular atheist (most believe there was a big bang, most believe there were self-replicating molecules that preceded life), you'll very quickly find that none of them actually believe that explanations themselves require explanation.<br /><br />So the way to make the most sense of this argument is <i>as a critique of a creator</i>. By regarding complexity as a "problem" in need of a solution, adding a creator just worsens the problem. You never see atheists anywhere hold to the principle that "explanations must be explained". Otherwise they would be applying this principle in other contexts to other religious (and non-religious) arguments. But they don't.<br /><br />The mistake here was that someone looked at a special argument with a directed criticism and tried to extract a hard and fast principle from it, and then criticize a principle that no one really adheres to. It's quite obvious why, too- Luke has said he's trying to make inroads with believers and doing this is essentially a performance to show them he relates to them.josefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650991894634101445noreply@blogger.com