Beleiving in God is the Norm

[Messenger]

I wonder : how do you measure/define complexity in this context?

BTW would a person who is more intelligent than his parents, not simply refute your alleged observation? i.e. we can observe lesser intelligence yielding higher intelligence.

read the first post
I don't believe that parents make their children

We have in the universe many kinds of causes and their actions/products
Human, Animals, plants, Nature
We can see clearly that human products is more complex and sophisticated than Animals than insects, than Nature

But human organs are more complex than human's products, this lead normally to think that human are created by higher intelligence

[Kyuuketsuki]

read the first post

HYPOCRITE!!!!! You don't read others posts, why should they read yours?

Kyu

[bowmore]

I wonder : how do you measure/define complexity in this context?

BTW would a person who is more intelligent than his parents, not simply refute your alleged observation? i.e. we can observe lesser intelligence yielding higher intelligence.

read the first post

I see no definition of complexity there, or a way of measuring it.

I don't believe that parents make their children

?? Your thread strongly appeals to what we observe, yet you are quick to dismiss observation when it contradicts your position.
I guess you propose children are created magically?

We have in the universe many kinds of causes and their actions/products
Human, Animals, plants, Nature
We can see clearly that human products is more complex and sophisticated than Animals than insects, than Nature

But human organs are more complex than human's products, this lead normally to think that human are created by higher intelligence

Again, how do we measure this objectively? By what definition?

[curiosityandthecat]

I guess you propose children are created magically?

Didn't you know? It's totally magical!



It definitely has nothing to do with biology, sexual intercourse, or millions upon millions of years of evolution. That would be... beyond comprehension! Thus, impossible!

 

[Sophus]

Then, if every complicated thing we see in the Universe we find that it is made by some intelligence and this intelligence relates to the degree of sophistication;
Would that make us think that the Universe is made by a very high intelligence?

If this is your "logic" then what made god? He's suppose to be more complicated than the universe, no? So then, logically (according to Messenger) something intelligent had to design him. Of course theists always say that God always existed and was never created. Well I believe the universe or something that sparked the universe has always existed and was never created. Only I imagine it was something simple that evolved into what we see. You believe something magical and complex waved a magic wand.

Logicans don't tend to believe in the supernatural.  

[Whitney]

Then, if every complicated thing we see in the Universe  we find that it is made by some intelligence and this intelligence relates to the degree of sophistication;
Would that make us think that the Universe is made by a very high intelligence?

Snowflakes are complex yet not made by intelligence.

http://www.livescience.com/mysteries/07 ... ation.html



Maybe you should rethink your stance.

[Loffler]

Now, let's compare this to the Universe
We see that more complex things require more intelligence to be made, for example
1- A rock
2- An almost straight tree branch
3- A ball made out of clay
4- A nest
5- A Robot

This is incorrect. Weather systems are extremely complex. Ecosystems are mind-bogglingly complex. And a tree branch is more complex than a ball of clay.

We don't determine whether something is designed based on its complexity. We base it on evidence of designed purpose, such as the numbers found on a watch.

[Ihateyoumike]

Arguments for "Blindly", please

A blind belief is when somebody defend his beliefs, despite refutations and proofs

So, by messenger's own words, the definition of "blind belief" is messenger. Since messenger is someone "defending his beliefs, despite refutations and proofs."

No, but seriously, I almost feel sorry for this kid. I'm assuming this person is a child, due to their lack of anything resembling a coherent thought or argument. If not, then I hope they are posting from a mental institution. So many intelligent arguments from one side, and on the other side, one kid just getting owned. It's too bad so many intelligent arguments were wasted on such an amazingly feeble mind.

[Messenger]

Now, let's compare this to the Universe
We see that more complex things require more intelligence to be made, for example
1- A rock
2- An almost straight tree branch
3- A ball made out of clay
4- A nest
5- A Robot

This is incorrect. Weather systems are extremely complex. Ecosystems are mind-bogglingly complex. And a tree branch is more complex than a ball of clay.

We don't determine whether something is designed based on its complexity. We base it on evidence of designed purpose, such as the numbers found on a watch.

Ok, we can change the word complex to sophisticated and doing its purpose

[Kyuuketsuki]

We don't determine whether something is designed based on its complexity. We base it on evidence of designed purpose, such as the numbers found on a watch.

Ok, we can change the word complex to sophisticated and doing its purpose[/quote]

Oh, so it's word games now is it? Exactly what is unsophisticated about snowflakes or clouds?

Kyu

[Messenger]

We don't determine whether something is designed based on its complexity. We base it on evidence of designed purpose, such as the numbers found on a watch.

Ok, we can change the word complex to sophisticated and doing its purpose

Oh, so it's word games now is it? Exactly what is unsophisticated about snowflakes or clouds?[/quote]
They don't need complex operation to be made and it does not have a purpose related to its structure

[Kyuuketsuki]

We don't determine whether something is designed based on its complexity. We base it on evidence of designed purpose, such as the numbers found on a watch.

Ok, we can change the word complex to sophisticated and doing its purpose

Oh, so it's word games now is it? Exactly what is unsophisticated about snowflakes or clouds?

They don't need complex operation to be made and it does not have a purpose related to its structure[/quote]

And exactly who defines whether something has a a purpose or not?

You're just changing the rules to suit your own conclusions ... you would make an exceptionally poor scientist.

Kyu

[curiosityandthecat]

you would make an exceptionally poor scientist.

And logician!

BA-ZING!!  

[Loffler]

Now, let's compare this to the Universe
We see that more complex things require more intelligence to be made, for example
1- A rock
2- An almost straight tree branch
3- A ball made out of clay
4- A nest
5- A Robot

This is incorrect. Weather systems are extremely complex. Ecosystems are mind-bogglingly complex. And a tree branch is more complex than a ball of clay.

We don't determine whether something is designed based on its complexity. We base it on evidence of designed purpose, such as the numbers found on a watch.

Ok, we can change the word complex to sophisticated and doing its purpose

Yes, and thereby abandon your above hierarchy, since only two of those things have a designed purpose (nest and robot).

[Messenger]

Yes, and thereby abandon your above hierarchy, since only two of those things have a designed purpose (nest and robot).

You should add probability here
A stick or a ball may have a purpose, so it is maybe made by intelligence
Based on every single example in the universe, it is made by intelligence with very high probability