A monkey is the Pope's uncle.

You'll have to do better than wikipedia, Terry. I disagree that my argument falls within the illicit conversion rubric.

You'll also have to tell me where Dawkins the biologist is NOT talking about the absence of God.

You'll have to do better than wikipedia, Terry. I disagree that my argument falls within the illicit conversion rubric.

Disagree all you like. You were incorrect when you assumed the inverse of an inference must also be true. The fallacy of the illicit conversion has been taught in formal logic classes since the time of Socrates. Don't diss it because it, and other logical fallacies are listed in a Wiki. I should think you would avail yourself of said list.

You ARE right, however. God, both the presence AND absence of, needs to be relegated to the non-scientific. You just can't ASSUME, however, that the inverse of a statement will always be right.

Piss on Dawkins. He is a militant atheist. If you trot him out as an example of all scientists, you do yourself and the rest of us a disservice, particularly if you are looking to be correct.

Evolution, and science in general, doesn't even address the subject of god - it confines itself to the NATURAL, OBSERVABLE universe.

Saying that nature doesn't NEED a god (as we have natural explanations for things) isn't the same as saying it doesn't have one.

Anyway, #2 of your argument is moot as you can never support step #1 of your argument:

1-It is a reasonable inference from what we witness that God exists.

There would be nothing reasonable about that inference.

Hi Terry,

I understand the fallacy of which you speak. I was calling you out for citing a fallacy from wikipedia and then assuming that you've made your point.

"You were incorrect when you assumed the inverse of an inference must also be true."--I never assumed that.

We were specifically talking about whether the question of God's existence was scientific. I made the point that if the question is NOT scientific, then it is not scientific for either the yes or no position. You have yet to show me where I made this fallacy. My assertion regarding the "scientific" consistency of atheist scientists was that a question is or is not a "scientific one:" the question cannot be a scientific one based only on one answer and not the other. Can you prove a "negative" in the lab? (ie,there is no god?) How exactly would one do this?

Unless you believe that someone can be everywhere in the universe at the same time, with the capacity to see God, and therefore empirically prove that he does not exist.

Piss on Dawkins. He is a militant atheist. If you trot him out as an example of all scientists, you do yourself and the rest of us a disservice, particularly if you are looking to be correct.

Well said, Terry!

I love that. Piss on Dawkins. hehehe

TerryRC wrote:darth omar: I don't think the universe is fined-tuned for intelligent life; I know it is. Or at least that is what the science indicates. You're a science guy, right? Your point about the universe being largely harsh and unfriendly is not something I deny. On the other hand, the point is irrelevant insofar as that has nothing to do with the physical constants being 'just-so'.

No, the science indicates that the universe is harsh and quantum physicists think the physical constants that we can measure are the result of random chance during the first 10 to the power of minus eight seconds or so of the big bang. You are familiar with that part of the science?

Of course, you are talking about cosmology and NOT evolution.

Your question about SETI is irrelevant. Slick, though.

They are looking for extraterrestrial NATURAL life, not the hand of god. Unless you are saying that god was a non-divine alien...

They 'think' it's the result of random chance? Or do they just assume it's due to random chance because their commitment to methodological naturalism neccessitates such a 'conclusion'?

Cosmology comes under the general rubric of evolution. You've heard of cosmic evolution, I'm sure. If not, feel free to Google.

I wasn't aware that SETI was only searching for natural life. Though to me most precise, they are searching for signs of intelligence amongst all the natural noise; only after discerning intelligence can they then infer the existence of intelligent life. I don't know how they can rule, out of hand, a supernatural cause. Though I'm sure they would assume it was from a natural source, Occam's Razor and all. But that's all beside the point; the fact is, both ID and SETI use science to discern intelligent cause.

And you have yet to explain why one is science and the other is 'religion'.

As an ID theorist I am neccessarily agnostic about the ultimate nature of the source of the intelligently designed artifact. Spiritually/philosophically, is another matter. I do believe the Judeo-Christian God would be the most likely candidate. And I admit that I'm biased.

I believe I've said before that 'a hard argument' can only be made for deism [or a very generic theism] from an ID standpoint.

Cosmology comes under the general rubric of evolution. You've heard of cosmic evolution, I'm sure. If not, feel free to Google.

No, it does not. You are being intentionally misleading. Evolution ONLY addresses how speciation occurs. In the generic sense, evolution can mean "change over time", but in the scientific sense, it ONLY addresses speciation.

They 'think' it's the result of random chance? Or do they just assume it's due to random chance because their commitment to methodological naturalism neccessitates such a 'conclusion'?

Perhaps you should read up on it, yourself.

The physical laws that we have now couldn't have existed right after the Big Bang. Hell, matter as we know it, couldn't exist. Can't have a "speed of light" if there IS no light.

There is no reason to think that the physical constants were predetermined when they did gel.

...both ID and SETI use science to discern intelligent cause.

How? How does science look at the supernatural, unless you are suggesting the "designer" was a natural being that used natural means to do the designing?

Where is the evidence. Has one single circumstance of design (one that couldn't have happened by natural means) EVER been documented?

Science CAN'T look at the supernatural. That means that ID is not science.

That makes your ID/SETI comparison invalid

ID is anti-science. In science, you do not shape observations to fit your beliefs. You shape your beliefs to fit the observations.