Seperation of Atheism and State.
macro...@internetcds.com
But you have to be intelligent to see it.
RP
macro...@internetCDS.com wrote:
> Intelligent design is fact.
>
> But you have to be intelligent to see it.
Is that a premise or a conclusion?
Richard Perry
macro...@internetcds.com
"I want to know how God created this world.
I want to know His thoughts. The rest are
just details." Albert Einstein
Sam Wormley
It's faith based and can't be falsified by observation or
experiment.
TomGee
hard enough!
But don't you mean that if you have to be intelligent to see ID, and ID
is false, then those who think it is true cannot be as intelligent as
they profess to be?
macro...@internetcds.com
RP
Sam Wormley wrote:
If it can't be observed or else deduced from observation, then it's
already false. *Faith based* is another name for rationalization.
The subconscious argument that spawns the sentiment is a simple case of
assuming the consequent, a trap that cannot be easily perceived by most.
It's an obfuscation that is convenient, lazy, and crafty enough to
delude the willing. It's also the lesser of two evils, which provides it
with a natural appeal. In most societies it's practical. In many
families and communities it's indoctrinated. Religion is mutually
exclusive to truth.
Richard Perry
Richard Perry
Nick
God created it.
What was the science for creation?
RP
Nick wrote:
Define *created*. Intelligent design that is subject to observation
reduces to the manipulation of matter, specifically the positions of
it's components wrt each other in spacetime. Creation in our everyday
experience bears no relationship to your implied definition of the term.
"Genesis" was proposed once upon a time.
Richard Perry
Nick
of creation. And it aint a mindless lump.
It is an energy buildup in space-time that becomes
mass - that is spread out!
RP
Nick wrote:
According to Special Relativity no two frames would agree on when it
began. For any space-time event that you choose, e.g. to correspond to
your zero t, there exists some inertial frame in which that event
occurred infinitely in the past. DOA. Special Relativity and
*creation*<sic> are mutually exclusive.
Richard Perry
Nick
Robert Kolker
> Intelligent design is fact.
Has anyone seen the Designer in the act?
Bob Kolker
Nick
RP
Nick wrote:
> What is the science of creation?
A meaningless word combination.
Richard Perry
Igor
macro...@internetCDS.com wrote:
> Intelligent design is fact.
>
> But you have to be intelligent to see it.
ID is religion. Absolutely nothing scientific about it. Most often, a
lack of intelligence, especially critical faculties, leads to such an
asinine conclusion. Besides, a whole mountain of evidence can support
a theory, but all it takes is one simple experiment or observation to
shoot it down. This is known as falsifiability, and it is severely
lacking when people try to put forth religious ideas masquerading as
science. This also applies to that Einstein quote you are so fond of
pulling out. Just because a scientist said it, doesn't necessarily
make it science.
PD
RP wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > RP wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> macro...@internetCDS.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> Intelligent design is fact.
> >>>
> >>> But you have to be intelligent to see it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Is that a premise or a conclusion?
> >>
> >> Richard Perry
> >>
> >
> > It's faith based and can't be falsified by observation or
> > experiment.
>
> If it can't be observed or else deduced from observation, then it's
> already false.
That's arguable. If it can't be observed or deduced from observation,
then it's not assimilated into *scientific* knowledge. To assert that
if something is not part of scientific knowledge, then it is ipso facto
false seems to me to be completely unsupportable.
Now, if you want to say that it is your *faith* that statements that
are not scientifically knowable are false, then I can live with that.
PD
Nick
"I want to know how God created this world. I
want to know his thoughts. The rest are just
details." Albert Einstein
What is the science behind creation?
Einstein wanted to know.
Autymn D. C.
have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
religion than it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the
world so far as our science can reveal it."
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his
creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short,
who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that
the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls
harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."
The beginning of one universe is the end of another. The ends are
arbitrary. A dumbass male human can make a trillion sperm in a
lifetime, all but a couple dying. If he does not rid of the rest by
whatever means, he gets nocturnal emissions or prostate cancer. That
is not intelligent design.
-Aut
RP
PD wrote:
> RP wrote:
>
>>Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>
>>>RP wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>macro...@internetCDS.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Intelligent design is fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>But you have to be intelligent to see it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Is that a premise or a conclusion?
>>>>
>>>>Richard Perry
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's faith based and can't be falsified by observation or
>>> experiment.
>>
>>If it can't be observed or else deduced from observation, then it's
>>already false.
>
>
> That's arguable. If it can't be observed or deduced from observation,
> then it's not assimilated into *scientific* knowledge. To assert that
> if something is not part of scientific knowledge, then it is ipso facto
> false seems to me to be completely unsupportable.
>
> Now, if you want to say that it is your *faith* that statements that
> are not scientifically knowable are false, then I can live with that.
>
> PD
Truth or falsity only have meaning only in the sense that our perception
either matches observation or it doesn't. If, in the absence of
observation, one attempts to hypothesize some reality, then out of the
infinitude of possibilities what are the literal odds of success? I get
a big fat zero (1/00). Thus, unless it can be observed or deduced from
observation it is false, but I'll amend my statement to read "...until
proven true". Now surely you are aware that it is impossible to prove
anything true unless by direct experience. So where does that leave us?
IOW, if we can't even be sure about those things that are not personally
observed, then why bother with those things that cannot even in theory
be observed?
Richard Perry
Nick
was no universe before.
The universe had a begining and is expanding at
an accelerating rate. Its future is infinite!
No crunch ahead means no prior universes.
Autymn D. C.
If it had a beginning, it can be ended in the same way, no matter where
the universe is. The "rip" or "whimper" will eventually tunnel all
matter into the remaining black holes, which loop back to the big bang.
-Aut
I win again. Take that, Hawking.
RP
Autymn D. C. wrote:
> RP, we can make logical proofs without experience.
Without experience your mind would be a complete blank, but that ends
the argument too quickly :)
An abstract logical proof (assuming standard syllogisms) assumes that
the variables can be dichotomized among other things, all of which are
references to matters of experience. If I state 1+1=2, then I've assumed
that these numbers correspond to some things of experience, since it was
experience that generated the relationship in the first place. Other
forms of logic are possible OTOH that don't subscribe to the rules of
operation of this particular universe. That doesn't make those alternate
realities described real. If this were so, or even a possibility, you
might as well just say something like "God exists. He must, simply
because I am able to write the statement on paper without it
contradicting itself".
Logical systems can be self-consistent independently of experience, but
without experience and abstract expression these are the equivalent of
saying nothing whatsoever. Empirical truth requires experience, logical
truth does not. I tend to distinguish between these two: I call the
first reality and the second I call an improper use of the word truth.
"Valid" is much better, but still not quite satisfactory.
As Russell pointed out, the resolution to philosophical debates usually
only requires a defining of the terms.
I think it's probably more complex than the simplistic notion of BB. As
I've stated, the BB and relativity are incompatible. Nothing moves in
space-time. Now granted, the theory has evolved over time, some even
claiming that it doesn't imply a finite time-line, but perhaps
regeneration as per your speculation. My conclusion OTOH is that our
Universe is virtual, existing only as a fixed pattern in something that
is in turn completely foreign and unknowable to us in our natural modes
of thought. There is no passage of time in that domain, and thus no
paradox to begin with, nor is there a passage of time in the 4D block
universe embedded in that system.
If there is any virtue in the notion of God, then it lies only in the
fact that we still have not clue, in the context of null-space, as to
how we experience the passage of time. While this in itself doesn't
imply God, it does imply that in the grand scheme of things we are still
quite amoeba-like in our understanding of reality, and so might as well
fancy a God-in-charge as not to. Either way we'll still be stupid. But
with God in place we'll at least have some justification for killing
each other in war, and/or for outright manipulation of each other on a
national or even on a more personal one-to-one level. "Because I said
so" rarely goes over well.
Richard Perry
Nick
It wasn't a mindless lump.
Bilge
>Intelligent design is fact.
Only in counties with stupid people running the school boards.
>But you have to be intelligent to see it.
That's inconsistent with the fact that you advocate it.
Bilge
>
>> Intelligent design is fact.
>
>Has anyone seen the Designer in the act?
Depends upon how much you trust nickys recollection of
events from his drug induced psychotic episodes.
Bilge
You lie all the time, so you might as well not even try telling us.
Autymn D. C.
not experience is had before or after. Have enough conditions and one
will get an automaton, which can work in the mind or out. "1" has
infinitely more support than "God". :)
-Aut
Everything's different.
brian a m stuckless
$ ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
1. There NEVER ever WAS, yet, even ONE (1) iNFiNiTY.!!
There never EVER will BE ..even ONE (1) iNFiNiTY.!!
2. ATHEiSM is ANOTHER simple OBjECTiFiCATiON of GOD.!!
3. VACUUM: A MENTAL state or condition "in the mind or out".!!
(VARiOUS vacu ONLY exist in SQUEEZED Swiss-cheese-LiKE minds.)
Sincerely,
```Brian
mark...@yahoo.com
> Intelligent design is [sic] fact.
The lack of intelligence is a fact. Even one fuck-up in the "design"
of the human body spoils the whole premise
(e.g., the absence of any backup for critical subsystems like the
heart, the lack of any self-repair or self-replacement mechanism for
limb; the fact that a high-power operating system has been hooked up to
blazingly slow I/O bandwidth; the slow response speeds, which makes the
body prone to accidents that a faster mechanism (even a computer) can
easily step away from in the time it takes the accident to happen; the
continual breakdown of the body, thus leading to a severe drain on the
health resources of the US and numerous other countries all intended to
compensate for this flaw; the lack of any sensible transport system,
making necessary a vast infrastructure to compensate for this; the
absence of any significant memory capacity, making also necessary yet
another vast infrastructure to compensate for this flaw)
The stupid features in ANY engineering system ALWAYS take precedence
over whatever "intelligent" features are present. If it don't work, it
don't work, no matter how "good" the rest of it is.
> But you have to be intelligent to see it.
Therefore, seeing "intelligence" is irrelevant. The stupidities and
collosal flaws of the system already seal the issue decisively and
irrefutably proven by these flaws: that the human body is a profound
accident of engineering so incompetently put together that if any
engineer had actually been charged with the task, they would have had
their sorry ass fired and then sued for wilful negligence. And in the
end, it will take an task in engineering as monumental in its
achievements as the body is in its fuck-ups to fix all of the problem
once and for all.
And only then: when the human race is replaced by cyborgs and by the
Borganism that the Internet is well on its way to fully becoming.
mark...@yahoo.com
> There was a begining [sic] therefore there is a beginner
> of creation.
#1 It does not follow. Nothing follows from there being a beginning,
except the existence of that which began.
#2 The very concept of "beginning" is based on premises that are
equally in question. It is a temporal concept and presumes an
underlying picture of a globally hyperbolic spacetime (i.e. one which
can be layered into a sequence of 3-D snapshots such that every maximal
worldline passes through every snapshot). This structure is present in
the flat galilean spacetime or Newton and the flat relativistic
spacetime of Minkowski, but need not be there for curved spacetimes
where (for instance) closed time-like curves exist; or where the
spacetime near the initial singularity has a different signature (e.g.
a Euclidean spacetime in which no time dimension is present at all).
If there is no global hyperbolicity, then "beginning" need not have any
meaning. In that case, there is NEITHER a beginning, nor not a
beginning and the whole question is moot.
Nick
about. Take a look at Hawkings Singularity Theorem.
If you can't see the begining then you haven't
gone back far enough!
There's only One God and one universe with
an infinite future. Only our future is infinite.
What is the science behind creation?
Einstein wanted to know.