Replies

Isn't it hard to be right all the time? I mean really, everybody on this thread is *mistaken* in some way or another except one, apparently.

I have been corrected on subjects in previous discussions. I am willing to listen to explanations of why statements that I make are in error.

So where did the fundamental properties of the universe come from?

I do not know. Lacking any evidence on the subject, I draw no conclusions.

This goes back to assuming that order can exist without intelligence behind it.

You have not demonstrated that order is required. Given a lack of information on the subject, the safest assumption is to make no assumptions of extraneous entities.

One cannot use the conclusion one is trying to *prove* the basis for the argument to prove it.

I have claimed no proof. I believe that I have stated this previously, so I do not understand your assertion that I am attempting to prove anything.

The fact that there is order in the universe is not proof that intelligence is not required for order, because one would have to know that there was no intelligence behind the universe in order for that argument to work and no one can know it.

I do not claim to have proven that no intelligence exists behind the order of the universe. I only state that thus far no evidence has been presented to show that intelligence is behind the order of the universe.

Precedent is that order and complexity require intelligence; there is no precedent that supports that order can arise without intelligence.

Your conclusion is not logical. You are claiming that there can exist no known situation where order occurs without intelligence as a means of ruling out all instances where order occurs without any apparent intelligence. You have only determined that it is impossible to establish prescedent, because the vast majority of cases where order occurs are situations where there is no apparent intelligence but also no means of ruling out intelligence, thus there is no means of drawing any conclusion.

And what exactly does that mean? Mutations occur randomly, the environmental changes that occur are ramdon, so how is any part of the process not random?

Natural selection is not itself the process of mutation or environmental shifting. Natural selection is the result of varied organisms having varied reproductive successes based upon heriditable traits within a specific environment

There is a basis, or precedent, for concluding that order requires intelligance because we see that in the manmade world around us. Everything that was altered from it's natural state by humans had intelligence behind it. All the things you are currently surrounded by, were a product of intelligence. Just because the universe and *nature* are *natural* doens't mean that the same concept cannot be applied; that the order and complexity are a result of intelligence. It's not illogical at all to deduce that.

What is illogical is to deduce that order can arise from non-order, on it's own, with no *mechanism* to produce order. And if there was a mechanism, that in itself would indicate intelligence. There is no basis for assuming that order can arise from non order, or chaos. It is illogical to assume so when there is no basis for it.

That's the evidence for intelligent design. It's scientific because it can be observed and reproduced and data can be got from it.

You have only determined that it is impossible to establish prescedent, because the vast majority of cases where order occurs are situations where there is no apparent intelligence but also no means of ruling out intelligence, thus there is no means of drawing any conclusion.

"because the vast majority of cases where order occurs are situations where there is no apparent intelligence

Please be specific and give a number of these cases.

Given a lack of information on the subject, the safest assumption is to make no assumptions of extraneous entities.

But by making *no assumptions* you ARE making an assumption. And it's not true that it's the safest assumption to make. It's an assumption reflecting a bias. The *no entities* claim is not neutral so there is no reason for it to be the default option when considering entities or the cause behind something. That's just favoring one point of view over the other and is not acceptable from the scientific viewpoint of true objectivity.

I do not claim to have proved that no intelligence exists behind the order of the universe. I only state that thus far no evidence has been presented to show that intelligence is behind the order of the universe.

Sure the evidence has been presented; several times in the last hundred posts or so. At any time they area available to go back and look at. Refusing to acknowledge it or judge it as not valid, or not real evidence , or whatever, doesn't mean that it hasn't been presented. It's the same for all the Scripture that has been presented. Ignoring it, or deciding that it doesn't fit, or not giving it any credence, doesn't absolve one from the responsibility to answer, especially when that one has asked for evidence.

You are claiming that there can exist no known situation where order occurs without intelligence as a means of ruling out all instances where order occurs without any apparent intelligence.

No, that's not illogical. It's completely logical. There are many cases where we know for sure that there was intelligence behind the order and complexity of objects, whether completely man-made or merely man altered. So it is illogical to presume that there was no intelligence behind the order and complexity where we're not sure. Precedent has been set by the cases we are sure about. There is NO basis of assuming no intelligence in the cases we aren't. So why should we presume that in cases where we aren't sure that there is no intelligence behind it? On what basis does one come to that conclusion?