Amazon.com Widgets

Are intelligent design and irreducible complexity valid arguments in favor of God's existence?

Asked by: ladiesman
  • They are "Valid":

    The arguments are valid. I don't really think they are sound but they are valid. All that is required for them to meet the criteria of being logically valid is present and the two theories, even if I disagree with them, at least have the structure required to be posited.

  • In a nutshell...

    If Creation wasn't the only other alternative, I wonder how many people would believe in evolution? Evolutionists and atheists are always saying how Theists are a bunch of deluded fools, while ignoring the fact that their own theory has no scientific evidence to support it. They believe in evolution because the alternative is abhorrent to them. A living God, that they must answer to.

  • For argument's sake

    Originally I'm agnostic, but for argument's sake I argue in favor of God's existence using irreducible complexity. There are some features of the cosmos and Earth that are too complex to have come into being on their own. Whenever I think about it, it seems unlikely that complex organisms such as humans and animals developed through evolution alone.

  • For argument's sake

    My official religious position is agnosticism, but for argument's sake I use the irreducible complexity argument on this matter. There are some features of Earth that are too complex to have come into being on their own. Whenever I think about it, it seems unlikely that complicated organisms like humans developed through evolution alone.

  • Many scientists are unsatisfied with Evolutionary biology.

    The more I read about "IC" the more it reminds me of how the Boeing 747 was engineered. The engineers for the 747 used a term called, "Fault Tree Analysis". If one component becomes faulty or defective, the other linked parts will also fail causing the aircraft to malfunction. The interlinked parts, whether separate or not, rely on the function of the entire mechanism. Irreducible Complexity is a valid argument from observation and is difficult to debunk. Scientists use silly anecdotes to debunk it, but I am con convinced by them.

  • They are valid as arguments

    It can be proved that evolution exists, yet this does not mean that intelligent design and irreducible complexity do not exist as evolution doesn't mean that God did not design the universe and allow evolution to create this design. Therefore, both are valid as theories until it can be proved that it is impossible for them to exist. This means that, technically, both are valid as arguments for the existence of God, even if they are not great arguments for it.

  • It defeats the purpose.

    Some people point out that man is so complex that it proves intelligent design, and if it had to be designed it needed a designer i.E., god. Problem is, their god also would be considered a complex being. Immense power, vast wisdom, able to travel between worlds. If man would need a creator, then their god too would need one. So would the being that created god's creator and so on till we have an infinite lineage of gods that lead to the creation of man. Simple question for people who make the claim, "Does everything complex need to be created or could they just came into being."
    Some could look at a snowflake under a microscope and notice how complex and amazing it's structure is. Did a god carve out each one so fast that millions or billions of them fall every second or could they have just come to existence on their own too?

  • Just because the pious don't understand something, doesn't mean it isn't real.

    Priests don't understand the Higgs Boson particle accelerator. Does that mean CERN isn't real?

    No.

    Irreducible complexity is a foolish and unsupported hypothesis.

    Life, by its very nature, is complex.

    Multi-cellular life, doubly so.

    To say, I CAN'T EXPLAIN IT SO GAWD! Is akin to surrendering to ignorance.

    Intelligent Design is only believed by the stupid and indoctrinated.

  • That is completely absurd!!!

    The problem with all arguments like this one is that it jumps from- we don't know all the details YET, so there must be a contentions, all-mighty being that did it..... That's a much bigger leap of faith than say, the theory of evolution; which while it has it's flaws, still has some sense to it.
    The lack of knowledge is and can NEVER be considered proof of the opposite, that would imply that there are only two options to start with, and this issue has far more.......
    The problem with all arguments like this one is that it jumps from- we don't know all the details YET, so there must be a contentions, all-mighty being that did it..... That's a much bigger leap of faith than say, the theory of evolution; which while it has it's flaws, still has some sense to it.
    The lack of knowledge is and can NEVER be considered proof of the opposite, that would imply that there are only two options to start with, and this issue has far more....... Being called "god" anything else is equally possible.
    Proving that 2+2 does not = 5 doesn't prove it's 4, it proves that it could be anything other than 5........Until you offer credible proof of there being a flawed-yet perfect being called "god" anything else is equally possible.

  • If you mean big G then no.

    The fact is that all these argument posit a designer just as the Kalam cosmological argument posits a creator. The problem however is that to take the next step and say this creator is my god is absurd. There is no rational reason why this creator has to be your god or even a god in the sense that we use god in the modern day i.e. omniscient and omnipotent etc.

  • No they're not.

    At first glance, with a layman's understanding of the topics being discussed, it might seem like these are valid refutations. After doing a minimal amount of research one will learn that not only are the ideas faulty, but the claims they're based on are faulty as well. The counter claims to opposing theories are typically based on misconceptions that will be resolved with a small amount of research as well. Don't take my word for it, check it out yourself!

  • There is no intelligent design.

    Humans and other organisms are very vulnerable to death and extinction. The Earth is very unpredictable and sudden violent activities can easily cause mass extinction. Dinosaurs used to roam the world but they all became extinct just because of one simple rock. Anything from mass volcanic eruption to asteroids can utterly wreck life on Earth.

    Out of the billions of years the universe has been around, life on Earth is only barely a fraction of it. In fact, a fraction is probably an overstatement.

    If God exists and he created the world, he must be a very, very ironic person.

  • No, They are Fallacious Nonsense:

    Intelligent Design is a failed notion that is an argument from Ignorance Fallacy and in many cases an argument from false analogy (Irreducible Complexity), argument from incredulity, argument from appeal to consequences and an argument from appeal to circumstance.
    Thus Intelligent Design is simply a bunch of Fallacies.
    Irreducible Complexity itself is a couple of those Fallacies in one.

  • No they are not

    The complexity of the universe is completely consistent with modern science. We have answers to where mountains, thumbs, and eyes come from. . . They are not too complex to exist without a god. Also, if something seems too complex a scientist will do scientific research to find out why; what they will not do is give up and use god as the answer to everything (some believe god created evolution and the like which I have no problem with).


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.