The burden of proof is born by the claimant. It goes both ways.
Order, in every single science except creation, dictates some sort of orderer, system or something to, at the very least, cause it. There is always cause and effect. There are always laws that are studied and dependent upon.
You see a footprint, a sign of order, and you know a human was there. You see a complex organism and claim that it's a result of chance and accident in defiance of the the second law of thermodynamics. This is not science.
If you choose not to believe in ID, that's an understandable decision. But, just like the big bang hypothesis, it is not based on scientific evidence. It's based on assumptions and surmising.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
" It goes both ways."
No it doesn't. I'm not claiming one way or the other and have no burden of proof. I'm pointing out that there is a massive flaw in the argument making the positive claims. The flaws in the argument exist regardless of any lack of proof for alternative theories. God isn't the default answer for everything.
You haven't made a compelling argument. Just saying, "hey look at stuff, gee whiz it's complex must be designed" isn't evidence for design. The laws of thermodynamics appear to be intact despite the minuscule drop in entropy you experience anecdotally.
Would you care to take another shot? Maybe this time actually focus on the bad argument from the post above and it's weaknesses instead of distracting with alternatives.
No. I'm more than happy to have a polite discussion and disagree. But I won't bother engaging with your condescension.
I'm sorry you feel it's condescension. I feel you are being dishonest to avoid the actual weaknesses being presented.
Feelings are subjective and not really applicable. It's possible to consider these things objectively.
Look at the difference in the way you communicated to me and the way I communicated to you. I made statements that disagreed with you, but didn't demean you directly. You make derogatory statements that denigrated my character. It's a somewhat veiled ad hominem attack that generally follows a lack of clear argumentation (just an observation, not an accusation). I've been debating people about this topic for a couple of decades. I understand it quite well. Yet I still offer you the respect of being a human who has to wrestle with these things for yourself. You didn't didn't return the favor at all. It's one of the worst forms of debate, and not worth entering into.
I'll leave this quote of your condescension here for your contemplation; "You haven't made a compelling argument. Just saying, "hey look at stuff, gee whiz it's complex must be designed" isn't evidence for design. The laws of thermodynamics appear to be intact despite the minuscule drop in entropy you experience anecdotally.
"Would you care to take another shot? Maybe this time actually focus on the bad argument from the post above and it's weaknesses instead of distracting with alternatives."
You need to grow some thicker skin. I would think after decades you would have done so. What I wrote is hardly offensive unless you are overly attached to your flawed arguments. It's possible to consider what I wrote objectively an not take offense.
"You made an argument from ignorance propped up with a false dichotomy." I find that sentence to be harsher than what I wrote previously but if you find it less condescending the message is the same.
Once again you are still choosing to avoid any actual debate on the topic at hand. I find your tactic of distraction to be dishonest. I mean you still haven't addressed the two points made in the original post.
I'd wager after decades of debating this topic you've had these objective arguments presented before and your flawed rebuttal dismantled many times over. Instead of making an on-topic counter argument you've waxed poetically with sophistry.
I'm not your enemy, yet you seem to go after the person rather than the points made. I don't really need to grow thicker skin. I'm not offended at all. I just don't bother with what comes across as pompous rhetoric.
You accuse me of not engaging, yet you haven't really engaged with my original comment in any meaningful way, other than in an insulting manner. Then you start playing games rather than grasping that common decency in these discussions goes a long way. When watching/listening to good debates, notice how well the debaters stay on topic, point out the argument itself, and generally avoid any advance toward the other person's integrity or personal character. I was hoping to influence you to show mutual respect.
Because one can respond in a harsher manner hardly negates having done so. I provided a longer response under @steevc's comment, in case it's of interest.
You have assumed that you made a decent argument in the OP. But, again, while understandable, it wasn't really convincing. You also asked for people to engage, which I have tried to do in a meaningful and respectful manner. You go on to state that you don't take a position. But you must, by default, even if it's simply to refute any claims of ID. Yet the idea of ID is one that is completely impossible to disprove.
In an effort to oblige and move the discussion back OT -
The order around us, along with the principles of irreducible complexity and specific complexity, plus the laws of thermodynamics, testify of design. If you refuse to accept that, as I noted earlier, it's entirely understandable. But such denial isn't really science based. As noted in my response to stevc, even many who attempt to refute ID are stuck with some sort of origin dilemma.
If you have a position to claim, then perhaps that could be engaged on as well. However, unless I'm mistaken, it seems like you're more focused on making a claim against something than for anything.
Part of the challenge is that "creation" is not observable. It's a historical science, so must be approached based on post de-facto evidence. The order of creation testifies of a creator. You deny that this is true. That's fine. I'm not bent on convincing you. I just disagree.
It cannot be disproven either. Any claims to have done so are disingenuous, at best.
If you are in a place of just wondering, then good for you. If you are an atheist (a logical assumption from the title), then you are making a claim that there is no God - an unprovable. If you're searching or wondering, then I salute your intellectual honesty. Perhaps you are agnostic?
Regardless, we won't get anywhere. What I claim is self-evident you refute with your own perspective. Continuing dialogue probably won't make a difference.
"It cannot be disproven either. "
The burden is on you to prove it not for others to disprove it. I must state again that god and a creator are not a default answer.
" then you are making a claim that there is no God"
I know you wish that were the case but it isn't. Get over it already and stop trying to force beliefs on to people in an effort to make your own false beliefs seem more reasonable. It's annoying and childish.
I accept your tacit surrender.
You stated that a 'complex organism cannot be the result of chance and accident in defiance of the second law of thermodynamics.'
Yet, if we look at the second law:
The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system always increases over time, or remains constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state or undergoing a reversible process.
We see that it requires an isolated system, one with no inputs or outputs. Assuming we are talking about Earth, the only place we've confirmed the existence of complex organisms, the second law does not apply because it is not an isolated system. The Sun bathes Earth in " 274 million gigawatt-years of solar energy, which translates to an astonishing 8.2 million “quads” of Btu energy per year." source. Which is a great deal of input energy more than enough to overcome local entropy.
The footprint example also fails as there are many things that could look like a footprint but not be caused by a foot. A rolling log might have left the imprint, or someone used their hands to draw a footprint in the sand.
A useful tool known as 'Hitchen's Razor' states, "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
So bring some evidence, or be dismissed without it.
Be dismissed?
Is it a habit for atheists to be rude to people who disagree with them?
Again you feign offense rather than rebut with evidence or a counter argument.
Is that an ad hominem attack?
I was referring to your ideas and claims, but those seem so tightly a part of your identity that it really doesn't matter if I was referring to the claims or not, you would have taken offense.
You still haven't provided any evidence nor addressed how your claims were rebutted. Nor addressed the original posts arguements.