Atheists, how do you reconcile this parallel…?

We as a society don’t always use scientific facts to establish something as true. For example, if we were to go to other planets like mars or jupiter, and find vehicles, buildings and other objects that show signs of complexity and usefulness, would you conclude that this is evidence of intelligent design by intelligent beings?

And if so, how can you see that as evidence for intelligent design, and not see phenomena in nature as evidence for intelligent design when they have the same qualities; complexity and usefulness.

Also, if you can, please answer this question


Most Helpful Girl

  • Evolution is easily explained. People who can't comprehend it don't see how things now could have happened through evolution.
    Machines built by intelligent creatures are a product of "intelligent design" but I wouldn't say that those machines appeared from nothing. The metal was harvested from the earth, melted down and moulded into shapes and fit together by intelligent people. The "intelligent design" is easily explained if you were to give it more thought

    • Even the process of evolution has those same qualitiesl, so it would show the same signs of intelligent design. Just because the material was taken from their environment doesn't mean it wasn't intelligently designed. How do you reconcile intelligent design in humanity with this explanation?

    • Show All
    • You're right, there is no proof or anything to disprove he possibility that a being created the speck that was the beginning of the Big Bang.
      There is really nothing more to discuss. A being that created that first speck is not a God that any human could know about, and since that being hasn't made itself known it must not want to be worshiped. So that's that. Maybe the first speck of existance was "created", but not by any known "God"

    • The thing about intelligent design is that it can't be proven true or false because it makes no testable predictions. It's like me saying there's a purple dragon that lives in my closet but I'm the only one who can see it. Since intelligent design is not testable, it doesn't make any difference whether it's true or not. If believing it makes some people happy, fine. Just don't use the possibility of intelligent design to support some man-made religion. Intelligent design true or false has no implications for the truth of any religion.

Most Helpful Guy

  • You aren't looking deeply enough. Human engineering designs are minimal designs that suit a specific purpose. If we saw similar designs on Mars we would recognize that the were designed for a specific purpose. In contrast, animal and plant structures are messy imperfect adaptations that are well-explained by natural selection. In the fossil record we can trace the adaptation of vertebrate body parts for other purposes: a jaw bone evolves into the bones of the inner ear, snakes still have vestigial shoulders and hips, horses hooves are adaptations of the third toe, while the remaining toes are still present but useless.

    Anyway, claiming that there is an intelligent designer is not only untestable, but it's also a completely useless theory.. Even if we agree that the universe was designed by some unseen intelligent being, that doesn't help us make any decisions. There's no evidence that this hypothesized creator is acting in any way on present events, has any desires regarding human behavior, or that consciousness somehow continues after death.

    Re the Dunning-Kruger effect, their experiments didn't show that every person who believes themselves to be competent is wrong. It says that the incompetent tend to incorrectly believe that they are more competent than they are, while the competent tend to underrate themselves, believing that the general population is more competent than it is. That doesn't mean that my belief that I am a competent computer programmer is automatically wrong. It means that many incompetent programmers believe themselves to be competent. My experience interviewing programmers fully confirms the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    • I'm not suggesting just animal life, I'm suggesting all phenomena in nature including the process of evolution itself. The structure of ecosystems and the movement of all of it's compartments. To your imperfect animals argument, a Honda civic may not be perfectly designed (it's not a Ferrrari), but that doesn't mean it's not intelligently designed...

      No, the study show's that people who are incompetent suffer from illusory superiority, while people who really are above average in competence take a more humbler approach and view themselves as average or below average. Don't twist the scientific findings to fit your narrative.

    • Show All
    • Thanks for proven my point. The process that they were build with doesn't discredit the fact that they were design.

      Lol. You're misreading both what I wrote and what the study says, please provide quotes and links. And are you saying that atheists are experts at something? All an atheist has to do is become a scientist for a certain amount of time and that makes him right? 😏

      "Experts tend to rate themselves more accurately with longer experience in a field." this is incorrect, experts still tend to maintain a sense of humility for the purposes of objective education or personal advancement.

    • I'm typing on my phone and autocorrect is messing up my spelling, so...

Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 1

  • Man, you really hate atheists. Why? We don't really care about you.


What Guys Said 7

  • How would I reconcile your post? Well, I'd point out that trees are clearly naturally occurring plants, and structures are not naturally occurring structures. I'd note that you're contrasting the creation of matter with the construction of that already-existing matter. Not even close.

    You're literally so deluded, that you think this is a good point. But, all it is saying is, "Yeah, but how do you explain the universe? The only answer is my specific tenet of Christianity is wholly correct, and I know everything [or, God made it]." It's such a wholly ridiculous point, that I really can't understand how you thought it was an ace in the hole.

    And further still, I'm sure you have some silly religious doctrine that you're trying to push or prove. Even if there was an intelligent being who created the universe, how do you know you have ANY FUCKING CLUE who that was? How about that question?

    • And further still, how do you even know the creator of the universe--if it was some sort of omnipotent being--was even intelligent in the first place?

  • How
    Wait wut?
    How does finding alien life correlates to "intelligent design by intelligent beings" ?

    • Finding signs of alien life*.

    • Show All
    • Intelligent design is intelligent design lol. It's used to describe an intelligent being (s) who designed something. What else am I supposed to say? Hahahaha

    • Intelligent design by intelligent beings yes.
      Good god , it's just the connotations with the phrase "intelligent design" thats all.

  • If we found signs of life on other planets, all that would imply was that some other planets lifeforms evolved to sentience like we did. Your use of 'Intelligent design by intelligent beings' puzzles me.
    Normally 'Intelligent design' refers to the idea of something being created by a deity, as opposed to evolving. But your usage here seems to just be talking about sentient lifeforms, which has nothing to do with the supernatural or a creation myth.

    The odds of any planet gaining a sentient species are rare, but the odds of it happening are likely. If you have an infinite number of planets, it is statistically impossible for none of those other planets to have life.

    I'd be more interested to hear a theist reconcile how life came to be on other planets.

    • Why are you trying to use some haywire interpretation of my use of the term intelligent design? ... Just answer the question...

    • Show All
    • You're the one who's playing games with semantics. You're misusing a word or trying to redefine it to suit your nonsensical argument.
      Why won't you address my criticism? Define your terms like I asked you to already, twice, or I'm done.

    • Intelligent design.

      A design (s) by an intelligent being (s).

      There you go.

  • The fallacy of religion is that you are asserting your views without proving them first from the ground up.

    This is how some (not all) religious people sound:
    It works so it must be intelligent design.
    I don't understand it so it must be magic or god.

    Also just because we don't use scientific facts always, it does not mean we should not always use scientific facts, on the contrary, we should almost always use them.
    Also your example of finding vehichles on mars would actually be quite a good scientific fact,

    I don't think you understand either religion or science well enough to comment on any of them.

  • I am an atheist, and I have to say, I have thought about it before, and I believe in most part of what you say.

    Let's say, our complex neuron system, the information travels through the synapse of one neuron and still manages to reach the other synapse without distortion, which is amazing, infact we have been designing computer progammes based on our neural network and they have been amazingly successful.

    Our DNA is so complex it's like an unsolvable code, but we are working on it, and scientists say they have seen patterns and claim they can solve it in 20-25 years ! maybe less.. That's amazing.

    Nature is a genius, and all we have learned is because of nature. I don't hate God, I hate the idea of God. I hate how people have such big egos that they just cannot accept and say " I don't know" when it comes to existence of a supreme being. And how they claim to know His name, and what all rules he made for us, and how he wants us to do this, and he wants us to do that.
    How do they know this? They don't. They made this fucking thing up. Is it that hard to say " I don't know " instead of making stupid assumptions based on nothing.

  • I'm happy to accept for now that everything natural evolved from single-celled organisms. Since buildings and vehicles clearly aren't natural they must have been produced by intelligent life.

  • Fug'em, das how.

Loading... ;