It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have
originated via the action of the Judeo-Christian God.
Therefore, it must have been the product of mind-less processes.
It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have
originated via intelligent space aliens.
Therefore, it must have been the product of mind-less processes.
Further Reading:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html
It is incoceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have been
originated via mindless processes.
Therefore, the Christian God did it.
So what? It doesn't make sense either way.
Odd, David. I don't see any of these claims made here, nor do I recall ever
seeing anyone make them.
Yours?
It's an issue of falsifiability, David, not one of incredulity. You're
attempting to defend ID through the back door. If you can provide evidence
that space aliens are involved, or that gods or other intelligences of like
kind, then please do so.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
_David_Ford's_post_
> It is inconceivable that the creationist troll named David Ford could have
> originated via intelligence.
> Therefore, he must be the product of mind-less processes.
Frank
It's also a false dichotomy:
It is inconceivable that <%event%> could have originated via <%pick
your -ism%>, therefore the only possible alternative is <%whatever
you're espousing%>.
-----------------------------------
mike
"You can't ask God to kill someone for you!"
"Yeah! Do your own dirty work!"
Not "inconceivable", just rather unsupported [if your "blank" is
the present diversity of life on earth]. How exactly could/would
"intelligence" have acted to produce it? What were the steps and
processes involved? Where is there any evidence that "intelligence"
did in fact do any of these specific things?
>Therefore, it must have been the product of mind-less processes.
Or, at least, the theory that it's the product of the processes for
which we actually do have evidence is relatively well supported,
especially compared to the overly vague "intelligence did it somehow"
alternative.
>It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have
>originated via the action of the Judeo-Christian God.
Why single out the JudeoChristian God? Why not include all the
innumerable gods that have ever been [or might ever be] imagined? What
about still other gods that humans can't begin to imagine? [Okay, the
latter would indeed be literally "inconceivable", but then why should
we rule out the inconceivable actions of inconceivable gods?]
Again, divine action is not "inconceivable", just apparently
completely unsupported [again, if your "blank" is to be the diversity
of life on earth]. How exactly could/would the god in question have
acted to produce it? What would the specific steps and processes
involved be like? How can we tell that this is the case? Where is
there any evidence that it did do these things, and how it did them?
[i.e., any explanation ought to actually explain things]
>Therefore, it must have been the product of mind-less processes.
Unless of course all those "mind-less processes" as described by
science are really the subtle workings of a God or gods.
>It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have
>originated via intelligent space aliens.
And where did the intelligent space aliens come from? Earlier
intelligent space aliens, perhaps? Where is there any evidence for
their existence? How exactly did they do whatever it is they're
supposed to have done, and how can we tell that this is the case?
>Therefore, it must have been the product of mind-less processes.
So, do you perhaps find it more "conceivable" that some unspecified
intelligence did some unspecified thing in some unspecified manner
than to accept that any non-intelligent processes for which we do
have evidence can ever produce anything at all? What magic properties
does "intelligence" really bring into the equation?
>Further Reading:
>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html
Yes, good page.
cheers
> It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have
> originated via intelligence.
> Therefore, it must have been the product of mind-less processes.
Strawman. Nobody is making any such argument.
> It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have
> originated via the action of the Judeo-Christian God.
> Therefore, it must have been the product of mind-less processes.
Strawman. Nobody is making any such argument.
> It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have
> originated via intelligent space aliens.
> Therefore, it must have been the product of mind-less processes.
Strawman. Nobody is making any such argument.
Science deals with the evidence. Conclusions are based on what
the evidence will support, not what you want for an answer. You
begin with an answer -- Creationism -- and demand that science
turn itself upside down in order to appease your comfort level.
That's stupid.
I think that was the whole point.
It's not a matter of "inconceivable" (you keep using that word, I don't
think it means what you think it means). It's that there is no evidence
that there is an intelligence that is capable of originating _________ .
Show the evidence of the intelligence, and show what process that
intelligence used, and then we can talk about what we can conceive of.
Snip more of the same.
DJT
> It is inconceivable that a David Ford post (fill in the blank) could
> have originated via intelligence.
But that's because we know they are the products of mind-less processes.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
>It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have
>originated via intelligence.
>Therefore, it must have been the product of mind-less processes.
>
>It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have
>originated via the action of the Judeo-Christian God.
>Therefore, it must have been the product of mind-less processes.
>
>It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have
>originated via intelligent space aliens.
>Therefore, it must have been the product of mind-less processes.
And if anyone were actually making such arguments, you might have a
point.
Most things are conceivable.
As a matter of fact, I can't conceive of something that isn't
conceivable.
This doesn't however seem like a fruitful beginning to an argument.
Mark
> Further Reading:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html
>It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have
>originated via intelligence.
>Therefore, it must have been the product of mind-less processes.
>
>It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have
>originated via the action of the Judeo-Christian God.
>Therefore, it must have been the product of mind-less processes.
>
>It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have
>originated via intelligent space aliens.
>Therefore, it must have been the product of mind-less processes.
Funny, I've usually seen these argued from the other side by
individuals using the argument from incredulity to rail
against their strawman versions of the ToE. And I don't
recall anyone using the word "inconceivable" when discussing
the possibility of ID (whether via gods or aliens); the only
comments seem to be about the lack of evidence for these.
>Further Reading:
>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Er, excuse me...
You (well, *I* at any rate) would not expect a Creator to be so
careless as to leave phenomenological evidence of how He did it lying
around, nor would I expect the process to be entirely comprehensible
to lesser intelligences who have purged their Reason of everything
except mechanistic thinking.
Now, carry on...
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 20:52:40 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy" posted 19 lines
> to talk.origins
>
>>
>>"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
>>news:b1c67abe.04030...@posting.google.com...
>>> It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have
>>> originated via intelligence.
>>> Therefore, it must have been the product of mind-less processes.
>>
>>It's not a matter of "inconceivable" (you keep using that word, I don't
>>think it means what you think it means). It's that there is no evidence
>>that there is an intelligence that is capable of originating _________ .
>>Show the evidence of the intelligence, and show what process that
>>intelligence used, and then we can talk about what we can conceive of.
>
> Er, excuse me...
Down the hall and to the left.
> You (well, *I* at any rate) would not expect a Creator to be so
> careless as to leave phenomenological evidence of how He did it lying
> around,
Of course not! As you know, dieties have trade secrets they must protect!
> nor would I expect the process to be entirely comprehensible
> to lesser intelligences who have purged their Reason of everything
> except mechanistic thinking.
Know any?
> Now, carry on...
>Derek Potter <m...@privacy.net> wrote in
>news:b0tp40l4klhuu4ifc...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 20:52:40 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy" posted 19 lines
>> to talk.origins
>>
>>>
>>>"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:b1c67abe.04030...@posting.google.com...
>>>> It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have
>>>> originated via intelligence.
>>>> Therefore, it must have been the product of mind-less processes.
>>>
>>>It's not a matter of "inconceivable" (you keep using that word, I don't
>>>think it means what you think it means). It's that there is no evidence
>>>that there is an intelligence that is capable of originating _________ .
>>>Show the evidence of the intelligence, and show what process that
>>>intelligence used, and then we can talk about what we can conceive of.
>>
>> Er, excuse me...
>
>Down the hall and to the left.
>
>> You (well, *I* at any rate) would not expect a Creator to be so
>> careless as to leave phenomenological evidence of how He did it lying
>> around,
>
>Of course not! As you know, dieties have trade secrets they must protect!
"No you can't copy my creation, Mudball!"
>> nor would I expect the process to be entirely comprehensible
>> to lesser intelligences who have purged their Reason of everything
>> except mechanistic thinking.
>
>Know any?
No, but I know an awful lot who seem to want to try.
For statements 1 and 3, the first answer that comes to mind is a
galaxy. But the "therefore" doesn't necessarily follow.
For statement 2, I can't think of anything because the Judeo-Christian
God presumably could make anything look like a product of mind-less
processes. So again, the "therefore" doesn't necessarily follow.
Bottom line is that we can never say that anything *must* have been
the product of mind-less processes. But the point is moot here because
evolution doesn't claim that anyway.
For IDers, it's not so much about defending design as it is about
diverting attention away from *how* the processes occurred. Every time
they get us to argue against design they score a victory with
nonscientists, who do not understand that the onus is on IDers, not to
find evidence of design, but to explain how that design was actuated
if not by evolution as we know it. And IDers have not yet taken step 1
to do so.
Try:
needs more work: Fatally Flawed: Vestigial Organs, Biogeography,
Homology,
and Embryology as Evidence for the Theory of Evolution
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0305250118100.2340516-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
> Yours?
I don't follow.
I've seen it.
"Gould seems to me to be saying..."
Is your own imagination at work, not what Gould has to say.
And you assert this:
"In short, there can conceivably be good reasons for a
creator to make organisms that blindwatchmakingists refer to
as instances of "parallel evolution" and "convergent
evolution."
While giving no support for it at all.
>> Yours?
>
> I don't follow.
You're the first one I've seen mention such. Ergo, it's quite likely
these are your ideas, apparently trying to project a common Creationist
blunder onto science.
>On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 20:52:40 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy" posted 19 lines
>to talk.origins
>
>>
>>"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
>>news:b1c67abe.04030...@posting.google.com...
>>> It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have
>>> originated via intelligence.
>>> Therefore, it must have been the product of mind-less processes.
>>
>>It's not a matter of "inconceivable" (you keep using that word, I don't
>>think it means what you think it means). It's that there is no evidence
>>that there is an intelligence that is capable of originating _________ .
>>Show the evidence of the intelligence, and show what process that
>>intelligence used, and then we can talk about what we can conceive of.
>
>Er, excuse me...
>
>You (well, *I* at any rate) would not expect a Creator to be so
>careless as to leave phenomenological evidence of how He did it lying
>around,
Why not?
What is his motive for hiding?
God is said to be omnipotent - so is capable of creating the universe
in such a way as to hide from us - but this contradicts another
supposed attribute of God - that he desires us (*all* of us -
including the rational skeptics) to know him.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
(snip)
I think I said something concerning pointless sophistry
a while ago, David. It's a pity you didn't bother to
pay attention.
-Chris Krolczyk
> It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have originated
> via intelligence.
> Therefore, it must have been the product of mind-less processes.
>
> It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have originated
> via the action of the Judeo-Christian God. Therefore, it must have been
> the product of mind-less processes.
>
> It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have originated
> via intelligent space aliens. Therefore, it must have been the product of
> mind-less processes.
It's inconceivable that anyone could be so clueless.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means.
--
John Wilkins
john...@wilkins.id.au http://www.wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
If anyone had actually made any of these arguments, you would have a
valid point. No one does. No one cites personally incredulity as a
reason for not accepting any of these ideas. What is cited is a LACK
OF EVIDENCE.
The statement is never "I just don't buy it". The statement is "I see
no evidence supporting this statement". There is a difference.
Evidence must be presented BEFORE an idea can be considered. To accept
an idea with no evidence is after all a fallacy itself. One might call
it the fallacy of faith.
White Raven
>On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 22:25:04 +0000 (UTC), Derek Potter <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 20:52:40 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy" posted 19 lines
>>to talk.origins
>>
>>>
>>>"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:b1c67abe.04030...@posting.google.com...
>>>> It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have
>>>> originated via intelligence.
>>>> Therefore, it must have been the product of mind-less processes.
>>>
>>>It's not a matter of "inconceivable" (you keep using that word, I don't
>>>think it means what you think it means). It's that there is no evidence
>>>that there is an intelligence that is capable of originating _________ .
>>>Show the evidence of the intelligence, and show what process that
>>>intelligence used, and then we can talk about what we can conceive of.
>>
>>Er, excuse me...
>>
>>You (well, *I* at any rate) would not expect a Creator to be so
>>careless as to leave phenomenological evidence of how He did it lying
>>around,
>
>Why not?
>What is his motive for hiding?
>
>God is said to be omnipotent - so is capable of creating the universe
>in such a way as to hide from us - but this contradicts another
>supposed attribute of God - that he desires us (*all* of us -
>including the rational skeptics) to know him.
Hello Mark, again. I have to admit that I am posting from
talk.origins, so you may have just seen this as a x-post to a.a.
Taking the second point first, you have somewhat mangled the
theological issue about knowing God. God wants us to know Him, not
just know *about* Him. This is not a new distinction. As James says
"You believe do you? You are doing well! The devils believe and they
quake". Belief imposed by physical proof would produce a large number
of believers in a Magical Maker who are no better off spiritually than
believers in Von Daniken's (sp?) visitors from space. It wouldn't
produce repentence and faith.
However, I wasn't actually looking at it from the PoV of God's
supposed motivations for hiding. I was meaning that God is already
presumed to have created a physical world working under physical laws.
Any clues as to the the way He did it would have to break the
uniformity of natural causes. There may be times when this is
necessary (miracles) but I would not expect clues to be left
accidentally by any halfway competent Creator. I also do not see Him
planting them deliberately since they are unnecessary to the creation
and therefore would actually be fakes.
Even rational skeptics don't deserve to be tricked into an impotent
spiritual dead-end belief.
Sorry, thought that would be obvious :)
In fact, it is your argument that is flawed, and obviously so. You note the
evolutionist observation that the presence of the vestigial organ, such as
pelvic bones in a whale, is evidence of the history of evolution of that
organism. Then you dismiss that claim by reducing the observation to a
statement of ignorance.
The claim that vestigial organs reveal histiry is not a statement of
ignorance. Far from it. Regardless of whether the vestigial organ does or
does not have a useful function in the present-day organism, the organ is
still evidence of history. Every organ, tissue, and structure in every
organism is evidence of the evolutionary history of the organism.
It is vestigial organs (whether they have no function, or a reduced
function, or a differnet function), however, that make one wonder about the
intelligence of an intelligent designer. Why put finger bones in a whale's
flippers? Why put a pelvis in a whale? Why make an air-breathing obligately
aquatic mammal in the first place? Why not make just another big fish?
You claim that it is arrogant to speak of the purpose of the designer, but
that is the purpose of science -- to question. The point is that we are not
just talking about a single odd species of an aquatic mammal with vestigial
features that suggest an affinity with land-dwelling mammals. We are talking
about *all* the species of whales and *all* the species of dolphins and
porpoises. Each of which has some slightly different variation on these
vestigial features. The pelvic bones, for example, turn up in some whales
but not all, and within a species, some individuals have more or less of the
pelvis remnants.
In addition, we are talking about *all* of the pinnipeds, in some lesser
degree, reflecting their facultative aquatic natures. It is the whole
preponderance of evidence of structures and organs which can be traced
throughout multiple lineages of plants and animals.
Then again, we are also talking about many, many other organisms, indeed, we
are talking about all of the more or less 10 million species of organisms on
earth and the tens of milions of extinct organisms as well. *All* of which
bear evidence of their history in their vestigial and non-vestigial organs
and structures. The rays of a sunflower, for example, are vestigial flowers.
In some species (there are many species of sunflowers) the rays include
little tiny non-functional pistils (female flower parts), and in some, they
are missing altogether. The tropical bougainvillea plant has bright red,
purple, or orange flowers. But wait, the brightly colored "petals" are
actually modified leaves, and the "flower" is a slender nondescript tube
enclosed in the flower. Some of the species in this group have no special
coloration on the "petals" and do in fact, look a lot like a leaf. The
cactus plant has spines in place of leaves. Actually, we can see that the
spines are simply modified leaves, so the leaves never disappeared at all.
Frank
In other words, there is no evidence that creation is true? ie
"nor would I expect the process to be entirely comprehensible
to lesser intelligences . . ."
1) Jesus could not have been conceived by two human parents.
2) Therefore, Jesus was inconceivable.
3) Whatever is inconceivable cannot exist.
.: C) Jesus does not exist.
Oh, stuff and nonsense!
Our "problem" is that there is no reason to believe Yahweh exists any
more than there is a literal Zeus, Wodin, Shiva, or Kokopelli.
And I am not impressed with the superiority of believing when there
is no rational evidence for doing so. Most Christians are Christian
because they were raised that way, just as most Muslims are Muslim
because they were raised Muslim, and most Hindus, etc. How does this
indicate any sublime spiritual insight? I would be more impressed if
someone discovered the truth through hard work and careful thought
than any one who happened to be right because they want to maintain
their comfort level.
Or does your God sort us our ahead of time? Perhaps he makes sure that
those souls predisposed to having correct "Faith" are all born
together, in order to create a community of God on Earth. But as a
skeptic, I wouldn't know how to determine if the community with the
"correct" faith is in Tibet or in Iowa, so I'm still in the same
position.
In the meanwhile, I feel no more compulsion to get right with your God
than you do with Shiva.
>
> However, I wasn't actually looking at it from the PoV of God's
> supposed motivations for hiding. I was meaning that God is already
> presumed to have created a physical world working under physical laws.
> Any clues as to the the way He did it would have to break the
> uniformity of natural causes. There may be times when this is
> necessary (miracles) but I would not expect clues to be left
> accidentally by any halfway competent Creator. I also do not see Him
> planting them deliberately since they are unnecessary to the creation
> and therefore would actually be fakes.
And so scientists who are theists say that when they do science they
are studying how God does things. If his/her/their clues show an
ancient Earth with a common ancestor producing all the living species
thru modication from natural selection, then that's obviously how God
did it. Hence Muslim, Hindu, Christian, and atheist scientists have no
trouble working together.
It's young Earth Creationists who are calling God a liar, by your
reasoning.
>
> Even rational skeptics don't deserve to be tricked into an impotent
> spiritual dead-end belief.
>
> Sorry, thought that would be obvious :)
I think most of us would agree with that.
Kermit
"The lyfe so short, the craft so long to lerne" - Chaucer
Gould's words are there, so others beside yourself can decide for
themselves.
Judging simply by the Gould quotations, in your view how many times
did you see Gould invoke an argument from incredulity?
> And you assert this:
>
> "In short, there can conceivably be good reasons for a
> creator to make organisms that blindwatchmakingists refer to
> as instances of "parallel evolution" and "convergent
> evolution."
>
> While giving no support for it at all.
Blindwatchmakingists would love to be able to invoke transposition/
swapping of genetic material to "explain" the existence of organism
features that are currently considered the product of "parallel
evolution" and "convergent evolution." Transposition would make their
explanations far more economical, but the structures always have
differing features that prevent such an "explanation." An intelligent
designer or designers could conceivably have made biology so that
those advancing a mind-less accounting for organisms have to make
themselves jump through many more hoops to account for numerous
origins of extremely complicated organs and structures and pathways,
for example eyes, bioluminescence, and light sensitive spots. It's a
monkeywrench thrown at anti-designer explanations of biology, and a
good approach should the designer(s) wish to be given credit for
its/their work.
> >> Yours?
> >
> > I don't follow.
>
> You're the first one I've seen mention such. Ergo, it's quite likely
> these are your ideas, apparently trying to project a common Creationist
> blunder onto science.
I'm not following what you're saying. I'm the first one you've seen
to mention what, exactly? What exactly are you saying are my ideas?
What is the [EG]"common Creationist blunder" of which you speak?
It is conceivable that some individuals think this kind of reasoning
is reproof enough in discussing ID.
What is astounding is that you feel somehow that the existence of this
sentiment in any way supports ID.
Grow up, grab a science text, do the work, and stop searching for
excuses for your unfortunate commitment to a flawed philosophy.
robert
How about this:
It is inconceivable that nihilism is correct. Therefore we must exist.
Well its conceivability has nothing to do with how convincing it is.
Every half-way bright teenager discovers nihilism by themselves.
Tracy P. Hamilton
> > While giving no support for it at all.
>
> Blindwatchmakingists would love to be able to invoke transposition/
> swapping of genetic material to "explain" the existence of organism
> features that are currently considered the product of "parallel
> evolution" and "convergent evolution."
I always thought that convergent evolution was explained by the concept of
"form follows function". Both sharks and dolphins have streamlined bodies,
because streamlined bodies are more efficient for speed underwater. The
same way that submarines tend to look like whales. I don't know of any
biologist who explains convergent evolution on transpositions of genetic
material.
> Transposition would make their
> explanations far more economical, but the structures always have
> differing features that prevent such an "explanation." An intelligent
> designer or designers could conceivably have made biology so that
> those advancing a mind-less accounting for organisms have to make
> themselves jump through many more hoops to account for numerous
> origins of extremely complicated organs and structures and pathways,
> for example eyes, bioluminescence, and light sensitive spots. It's a
> monkeywrench thrown at anti-designer explanations of biology, and a
> good approach should the designer(s) wish to be given credit for
> its/their work.
However it doesn't make sense, for an "intelligent designer" to create many
separate designs to do the same function. Consider the dolphin and the
shark again. If you want a seagoing, fish eating predator, and you already
have a design for such a creature, that's been very successful for millions
of years, why come up with an entirely new design,on the same lines, with an
entirely different physical requirements, and that requires coming to the
surface to breathe? Why would a designer come up with a dozen or more
different forms of saber toothed predators, all with different close
relatives? If you had a perfectly good design for a wolf, why recreate that
design as a marsupial, with a radically different reproductive system, a few
continents over?
Snip the rest
DJT
That would be *phenomenological* evidence. Creationism is bunk and the
God of the gaps has shrunk to the Plank scale. That, of course says
nothing about the metaphysical concept of God the Creator - for which
phenomenological evidence would actually be inappropriate.
"Us" being the collective mind of alt.atheism? As I said, this thread
is x-posted, which I admit I didn't notice. Alt.atheism ought to be
renamed
"alt.i_don't_beleive_in_that_nasty_capricious_god_of_the_olly_babble"
except that, fortunately, NNTP doesn't have a control message for
renaming newsgroups. I do understand atheism only too well. I also
understand that alt.atheism is dominated by people who have rejected
Bible-belt Christianity and therefore see things exclusively in terms
of the anthropomorphic God of the OT and hell-fire theology. However,
in t.o. the emphasis is on the origin of life, and the main
debate/flamewar is between creationists and normal people, not between
fundies and atheists. "God" is off-topic unless it is His creative
attributes that are under discussion. God is probably off-topic in
alt.atheism too, but as the word "atheism" sneaks Him in, you have
only yourselves to blame for the plague of theists trying to convert
you! But I understand why it produce the insularity it does. :)
>And I am not impressed with the superiority of believing when there
>is no rational evidence for doing so. Most Christians are Christian
>because they were raised that way, just as most Muslims are Muslim
>because they were raised Muslim, and most Hindus, etc. How does this
>indicate any sublime spiritual insight? I would be more impressed if
>someone discovered the truth through hard work and careful thought
>than any one who happened to be right because they want to maintain
>their comfort level.
I fully agree about families or indeed cultures. I do not promote the
value of believing as such either. It's a proper repentant response to
God that counts. Whether that is a sublime insight or not is
irrelevant. I also take issue with your "no rational evidence".
Certainly a lot of belief is completely non-rational (I say
"non-rational" because I think "irrational" has other connotations).
Believing because you have been bred to it would be among these.
Responding to God's promptings might very well be classed as
non-rational by one person but not another. Whether it then counts as
evidence again would depend on who you ask. If you have a problem with
the theology that puts value on *responding to* God then I don't know
what to say to you as to my mind it's obvious that you should.
>Or does your God sort us our ahead of time? Perhaps he makes sure that
>those souls predisposed to having correct "Faith" are all born
>together, in order to create a community of God on Earth. But as a
>skeptic, I wouldn't know how to determine if the community with the
>"correct" faith is in Tibet or in Iowa, so I'm still in the same
>position.
Tsk! Strawmanic babble!
>In the meanwhile, I feel no more compulsion to get right with your God
>than you do with Shiva.
I would infer as much.
>> However, I wasn't actually looking at it from the PoV of God's
>> supposed motivations for hiding. I was meaning that God is already
>> presumed to have created a physical world working under physical laws.
>> Any clues as to the the way He did it would have to break the
>> uniformity of natural causes. There may be times when this is
>> necessary (miracles) but I would not expect clues to be left
>> accidentally by any halfway competent Creator. I also do not see Him
>> planting them deliberately since they are unnecessary to the creation
>> and therefore would actually be fakes.
>
>And so scientists who are theists say that when they do science they
>are studying how God does things. If his/her/their clues show an
>ancient Earth with a common ancestor producing all the living species
>thru modication from natural selection, then that's obviously how God
>did it. Hence Muslim, Hindu, Christian, and atheist scientists have no
>trouble working together.
>It's young Earth Creationists who are calling God a liar, by your
>reasoning.
I have said so many times.
Hi Derek - yes the cross posting thing is a trap everyone falls into
occassionally.
8-)
>Taking the second point first, you have somewhat mangled the
>theological issue about knowing God. God wants us to know Him, not
>just know *about* Him. This is not a new distinction. As James says
>"You believe do you? You are doing well! The devils believe and they
>quake". Belief imposed by physical proof would produce a large number
>of believers in a Magical Maker who are no better off spiritually than
>believers in Von Daniken's (sp?) visitors from space. It wouldn't
>produce repentence and faith.
>
That's true - I often tell people that existence of god is only part
of the story.
I encourage my fellow alt.atheists to seperate out the issue of
existence from the issue of divinity/holiness - nobody listens to me
of course.
8-)
>However, I wasn't actually looking at it from the PoV of God's
>supposed motivations for hiding. I was meaning that God is already
>presumed to have created a physical world working under physical laws.
>Any clues as to the the way He did it would have to break the
>uniformity of natural causes. There may be times when this is
>necessary (miracles) but I would not expect clues to be left
>accidentally by any halfway competent Creator. I also do not see Him
>planting them deliberately since they are unnecessary to the creation
>and therefore would actually be fakes.
>
>Even rational skeptics don't deserve to be tricked into an impotent
>spiritual dead-end belief.
>
>Sorry, thought that would be obvious :)
Well this topic *hints* at the topic of the argument from non belief -
and i was steering the discussion in that direction.
Of course you can always find reasons why God might want a subtle
"emergent" "organic" creation - that relied on the inherent properties
of things (and space and time) to unfold - rather than doing flashy
tricks - but that means when the rational mind finally emerges and
sees creation what that mind sees is that complexity can emerge
spontaneously from simplicity and regularity.
What that rational mind can observe is that you dont need a inteligent
hand forcing protien molecules to stick together - that they fall
together of their own nature - that angels are not needed to expend
constant effort to keep the earth revolving around the Sun but that
the earth simply tends to fall in towards the Sun and tends to travel
in a straight line - forever.
An elegant and subtle God is hard to spot.
So he is hard to spot and we (some of us) are doomed (aparently) by
that.
This (briefly sketched) is the argument from non belief.
I believe it is one of the most difficult theological problems.
(I have read theologians answers to the problem but i am not satisfied
that any really answer it - not to my satisfaction any way.)
So I know your answer - I have heard it before of course - but it
still leaves me wondering.
I will not be offended if you exit alt.atheism - its a rather
difficult place for a believer. 8- )
>Hi Derek - yes the cross posting thing is a trap everyone falls into
>occassionally.
Keeps one humble :)
>>Taking the second point first, you have somewhat mangled the
>>theological issue about knowing God. God wants us to know Him, not
>>just know *about* Him. This is not a new distinction. As James says
>>"You believe do you? You are doing well! The devils believe and they
>>quake". Belief imposed by physical proof would produce a large number
>>of believers in a Magical Maker who are no better off spiritually than
>>believers in Von Daniken's (sp?) visitors from space. It wouldn't
>>produce repentence and faith.
>>
>That's true - I often tell people that existence of god is only part
>of the story.
>I encourage my fellow alt.atheists to seperate out the issue of
>existence from the issue of divinity/holiness - nobody listens to me
>of course.
You'd be surprised. A bit of reason does rub off from time to time.
Of course one might argue that if a Creator exists then He/It ought to
be the creator of everything including spiritual or moral things.
(And, maybe in some way not entirely clear to me, somehow in control
of existence itself.) But a common atheist position is that God is
only what people have bothered to document in ancient scriptures. Thus
the writers' parochial anthropomorphisms define the nature of Yahweh -
as opposed to my view which is that once Yahweh is identified as
Creator, that and that alone defines Him. Any other attributes have to
fit in. Of course this makes nonsense of people saying "Your God is a
bastard because he got the Israelites to kill those people". Almost by
definition He didn't instigate evil, so either our understanding is at
fault or the writer's was.
>>However, I wasn't actually looking at it from the PoV of God's
>>supposed motivations for hiding. I was meaning that God is already
>>presumed to have created a physical world working under physical laws.
>>Any clues as to the the way He did it would have to break the
>>uniformity of natural causes. There may be times when this is
>>necessary (miracles) but I would not expect clues to be left
>>accidentally by any halfway competent Creator. I also do not see Him
>>planting them deliberately since they are unnecessary to the creation
>>and therefore would actually be fakes.
>>
>>Even rational skeptics don't deserve to be tricked into an impotent
>>spiritual dead-end belief.
>>
>>Sorry, thought that would be obvious :)
>
>Well this topic *hints* at the topic of the argument from non belief -
>and i was steering the discussion in that direction.
Actually the Argument from Incredulity is nothing more than "I don't
believe it!" I think Richard Dawkins coined the phrase. You seem to be
going for a rather more interesting idea. But take my advice, don't
"steer", plunge straight in, both guns blazing...
>Of course you can always find reasons why God might want a subtle
>"emergent" "organic" creation - that relied on the inherent properties
>of things (and space and time) to unfold - rather than doing flashy
>tricks - but that means when the rational mind finally emerges and
>sees creation what that mind sees is that complexity can emerge
>spontaneously from simplicity and regularity.
>What that rational mind can observe is that you dont need a inteligent
>hand forcing protien molecules to stick together - that they fall
>together of their own nature - that angels are not needed to expend
>constant effort to keep the earth revolving around the Sun but that
>the earth simply tends to fall in towards the Sun and tends to travel
>in a straight line - forever.
>An elegant and subtle God is hard to spot.
Yes. That is exactly what I think. Of course I do happen to believe in
the miraculous too but the meaning of "miracle" is precisely something
*visible* so the evidence will stick out like a sore thumb. Or maybe a
healed one.
But to return to "elegant and subtle" - that to me invokes value. The
emergent creation is a marvellous thing too. These could just be
emotional reactions but they speak persuasively of real values that
exist whether we sense them or not. God "hiding" is necessary for the
wonder of emergent creation to be visible to this inner sense. It
would be greatly attenuated if there were coarse signs saying "Gawd
wus 'ere" all over the creation. In a sense God reveals Himself by
hiding. Being hard to spot may not be a bad thing.
>So he is hard to spot and we (some of us) are doomed (aparently) by
>that.
Hardly. As creator (full version) He is unlikely to be so crass to
doom anyone, let alone through an irrelevant game of hide-and-seek. As
I said, His *other* attributes - other than creator of the physical
world - may be perfectly visible, but not to the physical senses.
(Which, btw, makes most of them subjective so it's no use an
(alt.)atheist demanding to see them.)
>This (briefly sketched) is the argument from non belief.
>I believe it is one of the most difficult theological problems.
>(I have read theologians answers to the problem but i am not satisfied
>that any really answer it - not to my satisfaction any way.)
>
>So I know your answer - I have heard it before of course - but it
>still leaves me wondering.
Funny, I don't recall it :) Oh well, if I've followed you this time,
see if my answer is the same. Some repetition of previous stuff!
No, I *don't* believe God dooms people to unbelief by hiding. For one
thing mere belief in God's existence hardly matters, it's how you
respond to Him morally that counts. And if you happen not to believe
He exists, responding to subjective matters that have their roots in
him - like morality - is what matters. So I see no problem with God
hiding all objective signs of His existence - in fact I don't see why
there should be any if He did a good job of creation, it's not as if
He made us Thursday last week and forgot to put away the hammer and
chisel. However, His prime concern is with things for which there is
no objective evidence but a lot of subjective evidence: things like
morality, which humans have a problem with.
>I will not be offended if you exit alt.atheism - its a rather
>difficult place for a believer. 8- )
I've always enjoyed visits after the initial shock of my first, many
years ago when I didn't understand things like flames and killfiles :)
It provided a place to sort some thoughts out and I have the odd web
article out of it:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/derekpotter/articles/articles.htm
I'm not removing the x-posting now the thread's running. If lots of
alt.atheists invade and insist on Yahweh-bashing or bitching about the
Inquisition, I may drop out, but it's not "my" thread anyway so there
will be lots of game for the bleater bashers. I shouldn't really be
wasting time here at all, but sometimes I need a break :)
Of course. That's what the usenet is about.
Are you hoping someone else can do a better job of advancing your
argument, then? If so, whom should I be asking?
> Judging simply by the Gould quotations, in your view how many times
> did you see Gould invoke an argument from incredulity?
Where did I imply that anyone but you saw these alleged arguments?
>> And you assert this:
>>
>> "In short, there can conceivably be good reasons for a
>> creator to make organisms that blindwatchmakingists refer to
>> as instances of "parallel evolution" and "convergent
>> evolution."
>>
>> While giving no support for it at all.
>
> Blindwatchmakingists would love to be able to invoke transposition/
> swapping of genetic material to "explain" the existence of organism
> features that are currently considered the product of "parallel
> evolution" and "convergent evolution." Transposition would make their
> explanations far more economical, but the structures always have
> differing features that prevent such an "explanation." An intelligent
> designer or designers could conceivably have made biology so that
> those advancing a mind-less accounting for organisms have to make
> themselves jump through many more hoops to account for numerous
> origins of extremely complicated organs and structures and pathways,
> for example eyes, bioluminescence, and light sensitive spots. It's a
> monkeywrench thrown at anti-designer explanations of biology, and a
> good approach should the designer(s) wish to be given credit for
> its/their work.
And the support for this is...what?
>> >> Yours?
>> >
>> > I don't follow.
>>
>> You're the first one I've seen mention such. Ergo, it's quite likely
>> these are your ideas, apparently trying to project a common
>> Creationist blunder onto science.
>
> I'm not following what you're saying.
Oh, I'm *sure*.
> I'm the first one you've seen
> to mention what, exactly?
For example:
>> >> > It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have
>> >> > originated via intelligent space aliens.
>> >> > Therefore, it must have been the product of mind-less processes.
> What exactly are you saying are my ideas?
For example:
>> >> > It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have
>> >> > originated via intelligent space aliens.
>> >> > Therefore, it must have been the product of mind-less processes.
> What is the [EG]"common Creationist blunder" of which you speak?
Argument from Incredulity.
Now that we're all nice and clear, do you have a responsive response
somewhere?
Sorry, for asking you to backtrack here, but I thought this point was
interesting and it seemed like you got sidetracked from it. Are you
arguing that God hides His role in Creation so that we can know Him
better? How would that help us know Him better? Personally, if I
wanted someone to know me better I'd introduce myself and start up a
conversation. Do you think maybe God's just shy?
> > Blindwatchmakingists would love to be able to invoke transposition/
> > swapping of genetic material to "explain" the existence of organism
> > features that are currently considered the product of "parallel
> > evolution" and "convergent evolution."
>
> I always thought that convergent evolution was explained by the concept of
> "form follows function". Both sharks and dolphins have streamlined bodies,
> because streamlined bodies are more efficient for speed underwater. The
> same way that submarines tend to look like whales.
I don't understand what you're saying.
Submarines were designed by intelligent humans. Are you saying that
intelligence is responsible for the streamlined bodies of sharks,
dolphins, and whales, just as it's responsible for streamlined
submarines?
Are you saying that intelligence was responsible for thinking up the
idea of function (traveling speedily underwater), and then thought up
a streamlined form in submarines and sharks to obtain that function?
Are you saying that mind-less processes are responsible for
submarines, whales, dolphins, and sharks?
Are you saying that mind-less processes [or: both mind-less processes
and intelligence] make use of the concept of "form follows function"?
> I don't know of any
> biologist who explains convergent evolution on transpositions of genetic
> material.
I said that [df]"blindwatchmakingists would love to be able to invoke
transposition."
> > Transposition would make their
> > explanations far more economical, but the structures always have
> > differing features that prevent such an "explanation." An intelligent
> > designer or designers could conceivably have made biology so that
> > those advancing a mind-less accounting for organisms have to make
> > themselves jump through many more hoops to account for numerous
> > origins of extremely complicated organs and structures and pathways,
> > for example eyes, bioluminescence, and light sensitive spots. It's a
> > monkeywrench thrown at anti-designer explanations of biology, and a
> > good approach should the designer(s) wish to be given credit for
> > its/their work.
>
> However it doesn't make sense, for an "intelligent designer" to create many
> separate designs to do the same function.
If I had the ability to create many different designs of buildings to
do the same function (protect people from the elements), I'd do it
given a large enough salary for doing so.
If I had the ability to create many different designs of cars to do
the same function (carry people around), and I got a large enough
sense of satisfaction and achievement in creating all those different
car designs, I would do it for nothing.
But hey, that's just me.
> Consider the dolphin and the
> shark again. If you want a seagoing, fish eating predator, and you already
> have a design for such a creature, that's been very successful for millions
> of years, why come up with an entirely new design,on the same lines, with an
> entirely different physical requirements, and that requires coming to the
> surface to breathe?
Maybe because I'm bored.
Maybe because I like to see what else I can create, and I enjoy
creating and watching in action that which I create.
Maybe because I like to see my creatures compete with each other in
various ways.
Maybe because I was going to kill off the first creature shortly and
wanted something in the wings ready to take its place.
Maybe because I wanted to try out a new design concept I'd been
mulling over in my mind for the preceding 20,000 years.
> Why would a designer come up with a dozen or more
> different forms of saber toothed predators, all with different close
> relatives?
I'm not that familiar with [DT]"saber toothed predators." What
distinguishes the [DT]"dozen or more different forms of saber toothed
predators" from each other?
> If you had a perfectly good design for a wolf, why recreate that
> design as a marsupial, with a radically different reproductive system, a few
> continents over?
For the different continent part, perhaps I put my marsupial wolf on a
separate continent from my placental wolf because if they were on the
same continent, my placental wolf would overrun my marsupial wolf, and
I don't want that to happen, at least not right away.
As for re-creating a wolf design around a different reproductive
system, reasons similar to the [df]"Maybe...." possibilities presented
above could be reasons for doing so.
> Snip the rest
What is the basis for your last sentence above? First, I don't know
why faith would even be an issue in this case, let alone be something
that you imply is desirable, so let's set that aside. What I'm more
curious about is this idea that knowing for sure that god exists (i.e.
knowing *only* this) would not produce repentence. It seems like it
would naturally follow. It seems to me that believers that came to
belief solely as a result of physical proof would be every bit as
motivated as those that came to belief through various types of faith.
Why would you even begin to think that it wouldn't produce
repentence? (or that these believers would be less sincere? or other
ideas along these lines...)
>Dana Tweedy <twe...@cvn.net> on 9 Mar 2004:
>david ford:
>
>> > Blindwatchmakingists would love to be able to invoke transposition/
>> > swapping of genetic material to "explain" the existence of organism
>> > features that are currently considered the product of "parallel
>> > evolution" and "convergent evolution."
>>
>> I always thought that convergent evolution was explained by the concept of
>> "form follows function". Both sharks and dolphins have streamlined bodies,
>> because streamlined bodies are more efficient for speed underwater. The
>> same way that submarines tend to look like whales.
>
>I don't understand what you're saying.
>Submarines were designed by intelligent humans. Are you saying that
>intelligence is responsible for the streamlined bodies of sharks,
>dolphins, and whales, just as it's responsible for streamlined
>submarines?
I thought about arguing a response to that, but I realized that you
refuse to understand. I don't think it's a lack of capacity: It's a
will to ignorance.
--
Sev
>> An intelligent
>> designer or designers could conceivably have made biology so that
>> those advancing a mind-less accounting for organisms have to make
>> themselves jump through many more hoops to account for numerous
>> origins of extremely complicated organs and structures and pathways,
>> for example eyes, bioluminescence, and light sensitive spots. It's a
>> monkeywrench thrown at anti-designer explanations of biology, and a
>> good approach should the designer(s) wish to be given credit for
>> its/their work.
>
>And the support for this is...what?
The fact that you are prepared to jump through the endless hoops held
up by creationists.
> Are you saying that mind-less processes [or: both mind-less processes
> and intelligence] make use of the concept of "form follows function"?
Bingo, the last explaination, though not as a concept, but an adaption to
reality.
Klaus
>Dana Tweedy <twe...@cvn.net> on 9 Mar 2004:
>david ford:
>
>> > Blindwatchmakingists would love to be able to invoke transposition/
>> > swapping of genetic material to "explain" the existence of organism
>> > features that are currently considered the product of "parallel
>> > evolution" and "convergent evolution."
>>
>> I always thought that convergent evolution was explained by the concept of
>> "form follows function". Both sharks and dolphins have streamlined bodies,
>> because streamlined bodies are more efficient for speed underwater. The
>> same way that submarines tend to look like whales.
>
>I don't understand what you're saying.
>Submarines were designed by intelligent humans. Are you saying that
>intelligence is responsible for the streamlined bodies of sharks,
>dolphins, and whales, just as it's responsible for streamlined
>submarines?
>Are you saying that intelligence was responsible for thinking up the
>idea of function (traveling speedily underwater), and then thought up
>a streamlined form in submarines and sharks to obtain that function?
>Are you saying that mind-less processes are responsible for
>submarines, whales, dolphins, and sharks?
>Are you saying that mind-less processes [or: both mind-less processes
>and intelligence] make use of the concept of "form follows function"?
It all depends what you mean by "intelligent". Nature itself is pretty
intelligent in that it solves problems very efficiently through trial
and error. I can't see any suggestion that the process of design needs
a conscious designer, an external designer, a motivated designer, a
designer with volition, or any other anthropomorphic designer.
Ok, you and Glen are making the same point.
I don't think you *can* separate the reason why "faith" is desirable
from the actions required to produce it.
I would agree that if God were *merely* the Maker and if His agenda
were *merely* for us to know Him as Maker, then a good strategy would
indeed to be to leave ****ing great clues in 12ft lettering all over
the place.
If, however, God is someone along the lines taught by mainstream
Christianity then His agenda is to show us our spiritual plight, offer
His solution and bring us close to Him. A strategy of using physical
signs *only* would be useless in breaking the human hard-heartedness
that always rejects His love.
Perhaps you could go [S]"about arguing a response to that," not for my
sake, since according to you I [S]"refuse to understand," but rather
for the sake of onlookers.
> I don't think it's a lack of capacity: It's a
> will to ignorance.
[S]"I don't think it's a lack of capacity" Thank you. I'll take that
as a compliment.
I concede that all of those individuals that refuse to accept the
claim that totally mind-less processes are responsible for biology
possess a most perverse [S]"will to ignorance." They purposely refuse
to acknowledge the well-documented, experimentally well-tested and
proven, obviously true _facts_ that a) life came from non-life totally
apart from the involvement of intelligence and that b) biology is the
product of totally mind-less processes.
I know at least three theistic evolutionists who do believe that God was
involved in evolution, tinkering here and there. However, they know
perfectly well that the scientific method cannot investigate this sort of
divine tinkering and feel that evolutionary theory best explains the
evidence, and do not feel that it violates any fundemental spiritual
precepts they may hold.
Science cannot eliminate the possibility that someone/something tinkered
with evolution. If it's 2001 Space Odyssey-style aliens, then evidence
should be forthcoming to show when and where they made changes. If it's
your Judeao-Christian creator god, then science cannot touch it. I could be
wrong, of course, David. All you have to do is provide me with a means by
which the claim that said creator god did what Creationists here think he
did can be falsified.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
>I concede that all of those individuals that refuse to accept the
>claim that totally mind-less processes are responsible for biology
>possess a most perverse [S]"will to ignorance." They purposely refuse
>to acknowledge the well-documented, experimentally well-tested and
>proven, obviously true _facts_ that a) life came from non-life totally
>apart from the involvement of intelligence
Nope, it is NOT experimentally tested and proven. It's a working
assumption. It's a good one, consistent with the successful methodolgy
of science. And the existence of plausible speculations as to how it
happened does suggest it may be true. But the absence of detailed
theory - when so much of science just sails ahead and gets answers
suggests it may be wrong. Preconceptions usually come to the rescue at
this point.
>and that b) biology is the
>product of totally mind-less processes
I am sure anyone who has written a biological paper would agree :)
>Science cannot eliminate the possibility that someone/something tinkered
>with evolution. If it's 2001 Space Odyssey-style aliens, then evidence
>should be forthcoming to show when and where they made changes. If it's
>your Judeao-Christian creator god, then science cannot touch it.
Unless it's the Judeao-Christian creationIST God, in which case He is
likely to be a bit ham-fisted and leave evidence despite everything.
I find it hard to think of a tinkering God who manages to steer
evolution but leaves no trace. At the very least the evolutionary tree
would lean over towards His goal, presumably humans. You can apply the
weak anthropic principle to eliminate any significance to the fact
that it does reach us - if it didn't then we wouldn't be here
discussing the matter. However, the shape as a whole ought to show a
bias.
I am not sure about the butterfly effect though. God could throw an
imperceptible fluctuation into the Big Bang and set off the whole
machine purely in order to make sure I was born in due course :) There
again, the fact that nature has random quantum fluctuations all the
time probably rules that one out. Hidden variable QM theories don't
have fluctations though and they are not dead.
I would be moved to respond to this rather numb answer to Dana's
analogy if I wasn't already busy being stunned by your willingness to
cheapen the creator.
The nature of your designer seems to change according to convenience.
When it follows dialectical form you aver the overarching omnipotence,
the utter ineffability of god. This position brings into sharp relief
how wildly disanalogous are the human's and designer's respective
"intelligences." If the god of Christianity exists then surely it is
of such a constitution that we cannot even imagine its totality, much
less think as it does.
But wait a minute. As it suits your needs, you'll turn around and
argue as if the designer is of a more mundane makeup. Perhaps if he
(df)"had the ability to create many different designs of buildings to
do the same function (protect people from the elements)," he would.
Could be that if he (df)"got a large enough sense of satisfaction and
achievement in creating all those different car designs" he would do
that too. Heck he might even scratch his head and think (I
should)(df)"put my marsupial wolf on a separate continent from my
placental wolf because if they were on the same continent, my
placental wolf would overrun my marsupial wolf, and I don't want that
to happen, at least not right away" revealing his arrant inability to
plan ahead when creating the wolves in the first place.
Are you really satisfied with this kind of argument? Is this really
the god you worship? He may be a helluva nice guy but the first thing
I'd do is ask him if he's got two tens for a five.
Let me give you a bit of free advice. ID guys should never, ever, ever
offer anything that in any way reveals qualities, purposes, calibers,
or functions of their designer. To do so is to immediately blunder
into the wet cement of contradiction. Either you hopelessly dilute the
inscrutable majesty of god by equating his intelligence with that of
humdrum humans, or you invalidate ID's only argument from analogy.
Always remember, the one (and only) strength of ID is its complete
lack of content. Say nothing specific, avoid testable claims, and
repeat this mantra, "I never said anything about god. Who's talking
about religion, not me!"
robert
<snip rest of df's post from which I drew the above quotes>
> It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have
> originated via intelligence.
> Therefore, it must have been the product of mind-less processes.
It is not necessary that (fill in the blank) originated by
intelligence; an alternative with fewer or no undemonstrable
requirements explains the phenomenon adequately. It is therefore
incumbent upon the exceptionalists to explain why this conclusion is not
valid. Until and unless they do, the most efficacious explanation
stands as the primary explanation.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Proud to be an Extinctionist
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/
Nisi mecum concubueris, phobistae vicerint.
[...]
>If the god of Christianity exists then surely it is
>of such a constitution that we cannot even imagine its totality, much
>less think as it does.
Surely not!
Actually that is precisely opposite to what Christianity tells us.
Although God's ways are not our ways and His thoughts are higher than
our thoughts, Christianity asserts that a) God has spoken and thus
revealed understandable truth about Himself and b) (a Pauline
doctrine) His eternal qualities *are* understandable from "things
seen".
Perhaps you are thinking of some other deity? :)
[...]
>ID guys should never, ever, ever
>offer anything that in any way reveals qualities, purposes, calibers,
>or functions of their designer. To do so is to immediately blunder
>into the wet cement of contradiction. Either you hopelessly dilute the
>inscrutable majesty of god by equating his intelligence with that of
>humdrum humans, or you invalidate ID's only argument from analogy.
Since the Christian position is that we *can* understand God, it is
worth considering what "understand" means. Understanding is not an
esoteric self-contained system: God's attributes can be discussed with
ordinary language, concepts and reasoning. They can be compared with
other, "natural", things. That is the nature of "the God of
Christianity's" "inscrutability" - He is really very think-about-able.
Since His revealed attributes can be thought about easily, it is not
unreasonable to think speculatively about Him. We can also think about
the way *He* thinks. Of course, we cannot know what God's "brain" is
made of or how it works, but we can perfectly legitimately say what
problems He creates for Himself and what His solutions might be -
whether His choices are constrained by the situation that He has
chosen to create or whether He can do pretty much as He fancies just
for the fun of it.
And, just in case anyone's losing the plot, using anthropomorphic
analogy doesn't diminish the dignity of God. It is precisely because
Reason is the same for God as it is for us that we can talk about "God
scratching His head" without implying that He actually suffers
perplexity while struggling with a problem.
[...]
Meaning what, exactly? I freely concede that it's conceivable that
life/the bacterial flagellum/the human mind/whatever were created by
gods or space aliens. However, given that:
a) We already seem to have a reasonable start at an explanantion as to
how those things arose, without needing to invoke gods or ETs, and
b) The gods/ETs hypothesis seems to be a bit thin on evidence (indeed,
it seems to be thin on the kind of details that would even let us know
what evidence to look for),
...I think we can safely ignore the gods/ETs alternative for now.
> Further Reading:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html
Been there, read that, your parody is irrelevant.
-- Kizhé
It is not my hope that another individual will do a better job of
advancing an argument that I advance.
> > Judging simply by the Gould quotations, in your view how many times
> > did you see Gould invoke an argument from incredulity?
>
> Where did I imply that anyone but you saw these alleged arguments?
I did not say, nor did I imply, the following proposition:
you implied that someone not myself perceived Gould making arguments
from incredulity.
I will ask my question again:
Judging simply by the Gould quotations in
Fatally Flawed: Vestigial Organs, Biogeography, Homology,
and Embryology as Evidence for the Theory of Evolution
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0305250118100.2340516-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
in your view how many times did you see Gould invoke an argument from
incredulity?
(Your answer might be "0.")
> >> And you assert this:
> >>
> >> "In short, there can conceivably be good reasons for a
> >> creator to make organisms that blindwatchmakingists refer to
> >> as instances of "parallel evolution" and "convergent
> >> evolution."
> >>
> >> While giving no support for it at all.
> >
> > Blindwatchmakingists would love to be able to invoke transposition/
> > swapping of genetic material to "explain" the existence of organism
> > features that are currently considered the product of "parallel
> > evolution" and "convergent evolution." Transposition would make their
> > explanations far more economical, but the structures always have
> > differing features that prevent such an "explanation." An intelligent
> > designer or designers could conceivably have made biology so that
> > those advancing a mind-less accounting for organisms have to make
> > themselves jump through many more hoops to account for numerous
> > origins of extremely complicated organs and structures and pathways,
> > for example eyes, bioluminescence, and light sensitive spots. It's a
> > monkeywrench thrown at anti-designer explanations of biology, and a
> > good approach should the designer(s) wish to be given credit for
> > its/their work.
>
> And the support for this is...what?
And your problem with what I wrote is... what?
> >> >> Yours?
> >> >
> >> > I don't follow.
> >>
> >> You're the first one I've seen mention such. Ergo, it's quite likely
> >> these are your ideas, apparently trying to project a common
> >> Creationist blunder onto science.
> >
> > I'm not following what you're saying.
>
> Oh, I'm *sure*.
>
> > I'm the first one you've seen
> > to mention what, exactly?
>
> For example:
>
> >> >> > It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have
> >> >> > originated via intelligent space aliens.
> >> >> > Therefore, it must have been the product of mind-less processes.
I will admit that the [df]"intelligent space aliens" element in this
argument is original to me.
> > What exactly are you saying are my ideas?
>
> For example:
>
> >> >> > It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have
> >> >> > originated via intelligent space aliens.
> >> >> > Therefore, it must have been the product of mind-less processes.
I will admit that the [df]"intelligent space aliens" element in this
argument is original to me.
Experimentation is not needed to obtain evidence for the theory of
evolution. Evidence for the theory appears in every plant or animal
organ, tissue, or structure. The theory is extremely well-supported
because of this mountain of observable evidence. Every person, every
tree, every flower, every animal you see is permeated with evidence of
the evolutionary history of the organism, and is evidence for the
theory of evolution. To deny the theory of evolution in the face of
this overwhelming amount of evidence would be absurd.
> It is vestigial organs (whether they have no function, or a reduced
> function, or a differnet function), however, that make one wonder about the
> intelligence of an intelligent designer. Why put finger bones in a whale's
> flippers?
I would have thought that flipper bones are present in a whale's
flippers, not finger bones.
Upon what grounds do you allege that finger bones are present in a
whale's flippers?
> Why put a pelvis in a whale?
Upon what grounds do you allege that a pelvis is present in a whale?
> Why make an air-breathing obligately
> aquatic mammal in the first place? Why not make just another big fish?
Maybe out of boredom with what was already created.
> You claim that it is arrogant to speak of the purpose of the designer, but
> that is the purpose of science -- to question.
I don't recall saying anything about arrogance.
> The point is that we are not
> just talking about a single odd species of an aquatic mammal with vestigial
> features that suggest an affinity with land-dwelling mammals. We are talking
> about *all* the species of whales and *all* the species of dolphins and
> porpoises. Each of which has some slightly different variation on these
> vestigial features. The pelvic bones, for example, turn up in some whales
> but not all, and within a species, some individuals have more or less of the
> pelvis remnants.
All bones are evidence for the theory of evolution. Those bones
located in whales are just as much evidence for the theory as the
bones located in humans and birds and dolphins.
> In addition, we are talking about *all* of the pinnipeds, in some lesser
> degree, reflecting their facultative aquatic natures. It is the whole
> preponderance of evidence of structures and organs which can be traced
> throughout multiple lineages of plants and animals.
Every structure, every organ, every plant, every animal, constitutes
evidence for the theory of evolution.
> Then again, we are also talking about many, many other organisms, indeed, we
> are talking about all of the more or less 10 million species of organisms on
> earth and the tens of milions of extinct organisms as well.
Talk about _a lot_ of evidence for the theory of evolution.
> *All* of which
> bear evidence of their history in their vestigial and non-vestigial organs
> and structures. The rays of a sunflower, for example, are vestigial flowers.
> In some species (there are many species of sunflowers) the rays include
> little tiny non-functional pistils (female flower parts), and in some, they
> are missing altogether. The tropical bougainvillea plant has bright red,
> purple, or orange flowers. But wait, the brightly colored "petals" are
> actually modified leaves, and the "flower" is a slender nondescript tube
> enclosed in the flower. Some of the species in this group have no special
> coloration on the "petals" and do in fact, look a lot like a leaf. The
> cactus plant has spines in place of leaves. Actually, we can see that the
> spines are simply modified leaves, so the leaves never disappeared at all.
Sunflowers, tropical plants, petals, leaves, tubes, and spines are all
evidence of the theory of evolution. Evidence for the theory
surrounds us. It's really quite incredible that there are any
creationists given this overwhelmingly massive amount of evidence for
the theory of evolution.
In your view, if an intelligent entity tinkers here and there with a
process, is that process "evolution"?
In your view, if an intelligent entity massively manipulates a
process, is that process "evolution"?
If your response to the first question was "yes," and if your response
to the second question was "no," at which point do you draw the line--
at which level of an intelligence's involvement does a process cease
to be "evolution"?
In your view, if an intelligent entity created the physical universe,
and made the physical universe such that the universe would give rise
to life, and made the universe such that that life would give rise to
the biological world of which we are aware, would the biological world
be the product of "evolution"?
> However, they know
> perfectly well that the scientific method cannot investigate this sort of
> divine tinkering and feel that evolutionary theory best explains the
> evidence, and do not feel that it violates any fundemental spiritual
> precepts they may hold.
In your view, does "evolutionary theory" make provision for/ allow/
permit an intelligent entity tinkering here and there with a process
resulting in new organisms?
In your view, does "evolutionary theory" allow for an intelligent
entity massively manipulating a process resulting in new organisms?
In your view, does "evolutionary theory" allow for an intelligent
entity setting up a system such that that system gives rise to the
biological world of which we are aware?
> Science cannot eliminate the possibility that someone/something tinkered
> with evolution.
Can science eliminate the possibility that a process was set up by an
intelligent entity such that the process would give rise to all of
biology?
Can science eliminate the possibility that an intelligent entity
massively manipulated a process resulting in new organisms?
I'm mildly surprised you did not instead say "creator(s)" or
"creator/s."
> The nature of your designer seems to change according to convenience.
> When it follows dialectical form you aver the overarching omnipotence,
> the utter ineffability of god.
What are some posts or statements of mine supporting this [R]"When..."
allegation?
> This position brings into sharp relief
> how wildly disanalogous are the human's and designer's respective
> "intelligences." If the god of Christianity exists then surely it is
> of such a constitution that we cannot even imagine its totality, much
> less think as it does.
Does the [R]"god of Christianity" think that 2 + 2 equals 4?
Does the [R]"god of Christianity" think that a rock dropped from a
second-story window will fall?
> But wait a minute. As it suits your needs, you'll turn around and
> argue as if the designer is of a more mundane makeup. Perhaps if he
> (df)"had the ability to create many different designs of buildings to
> do the same function (protect people from the elements)," he would.
> Could be that if he (df)"got a large enough sense of satisfaction and
> achievement in creating all those different car designs" he would do
> that too. Heck he might even scratch his head and think (I
> should)(df)"put my marsupial wolf on a separate continent from my
> placental wolf because if they were on the same continent, my
> placental wolf would overrun my marsupial wolf, and I don't want that
> to happen, at least not right away" revealing his arrant inability to
> plan ahead when creating the wolves in the first place.
Though I haven't created a wolf, I suspect that much planning would be
needed to create one.
Perhaps you're in a better position to know. Have you ever created a
wolf, or know someone who has that we can ask?
Perhaps a wolf is stretching things a bit-- have you ever created a
spider, or know someone who has that we can ask?
Perhaps even a spider is stretching things a bit-- have you ever
created a bacterium, or know someone who has that we can ask about the
level of planning involved in creating a bacterium?
> Are you really satisfied with this kind of argument?
I try to steer clear of inconsistency. If my arguments and claims are
seen by me to be inconsistent, then I'm not satisfied. Something must
go, or be altered, or be added, to correct the situation.
> Is this really
> the god you worship? He may be a helluva nice guy but the first thing
> I'd do is ask him if he's got two tens for a five.
>
> Let me give you a bit of free advice. ID guys should never, ever, ever
> offer anything that in any way reveals qualities, purposes, calibers,
> or functions of their designer.
Whatever designer(s) was/were responsible for the universe, which
began to exist in the creation-out-of-nothing event that was the Big
Bang, it/they was/were extremely intelligent. Feynman's knowledge of
physics was puny compared with the knowledge of physics that was
possessed by the creator(s) of physics.
> To do so is to immediately blunder
> into the wet cement of contradiction. Either you hopelessly dilute the
> inscrutable majesty of god by equating his intelligence with that of
> humdrum humans, or you invalidate ID's only argument from analogy.
> Always remember, the one (and only) strength of ID is its complete
> lack of content. Say nothing specific, avoid testable claims, and
> repeat this mantra, "I never said anything about god. Who's talking
> about religion, not me!"
[R]"avoid testable claims" In your view, has intelligent design
theory been falsified?
Have any ID claims been falsified?
An excellent point. Even if Gould's arguments from incredulity
succeeded, they would only succeed in proving that the Judeo-Christian
God did not create the situations about which Gould speaks. Gould's
arguments would _not_ rule out the possibility that another, different
form of intelligence did the creating-- who knows, perhaps space
aliens or something else was responsible.
In short, a false dichotomy is contained in premise 1 of this
disjunctive syllogism argument:
Premise 1 Judeo-Christian God, or evolution.
Premise 2 Not Judeo-Christian God.
Conclusion Therefore evolution.
For some Gould statements I have in mind, see
The "experimentation" is obtained in analyses of these characteristics with
respect to morphology, chemical constituents, and genetics of living and
dead organisms. Experimentation is done all the time, it is very much needed
and, in fact, indispensable. This experimentation shows, for example, that
dogs are derived from wolves, birds are derived from certain dinosaurs, and
men are apes.
Evidence for the theory appears in every plant or animal
> organ, tissue, or structure. The theory is extremely well-supported
> because of this mountain of observable evidence. Every person, every
> tree, every flower, every animal you see is permeated with evidence of
> the evolutionary history of the organism, and is evidence for the
> theory of evolution. To deny the theory of evolution in the face of
> this overwhelming amount of evidence would be absurd.
The rest of your statement is true, but misleadingly incomplete. It takes
hard work and the scientific method to make sense of it.
>
> > It is vestigial organs (whether they have no function, or a reduced
> > function, or a differnet function), however, that make one wonder about
the
> > intelligence of an intelligent designer. Why put finger bones in a
whale's
> > flippers?
>
> I would have thought that flipper bones are present in a whale's
> flippers, not finger bones.
> Upon what grounds do you allege that finger bones are present in a
> whale's flippers?
The willfull ignorance of the creationist never ceases to amaze me.
>
> > Why put a pelvis in a whale?
>
> Upon what grounds do you allege that a pelvis is present in a whale?
On the grounds that whales have pelvises.
Please visit http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/mpm_whale_limb.html.
This page includes photographs of whale skeletons on display at the
Milwaukee Public Museum (which I have been to and I recall seeing these
skeletons). The pelvis rudiments are plainly visible on the Humpback and
Pilot whale. Also check out the flippers.
This page,
http://www.whalesongs.org/cetacean/sperm_whales/sperm_internal.html, has a
detail view of the flipper of a sperm whale showing the bones of the flipper
in exact correspondence with the bones in your arm and hand. The only
difference, except for the size and slight details in the orientations of
these bones is that there are more phalanges (finger bones) in the whale's
flipper than in your hand.
Would it have killed you to have dug up this information yourself? It took
me ten minutes and I robbed you of the benefit of learning something on your
own.
>
> > Why make an air-breathing obligately
> > aquatic mammal in the first place? Why not make just another big fish?
>
> Maybe out of boredom with what was already created.
Of course, God poofed it all into existence! Why bother ourselves with
wondering why or how?
>
> > You claim that it is arrogant to speak of the purpose of the designer,
but
> > that is the purpose of science -- to question.
>
> I don't recall saying anything about arrogance.
"Gould arrogantly alleges that God would have made what *Gould* considers
[Gould]"the
best" designs for running, swimming, and flying."
Interestingly, you made this statement in regard to a quote from Luria,
Gould, and Singer, 1981, about the fact that the bones in a man's arm are
the same as those in a whale's flipper.
This quote came from the link at the top of this post that you yourself
pasted into the message that I replied to.
>
> > The point is that we are not
> > just talking about a single odd species of an aquatic mammal with
vestigial
> > features that suggest an affinity with land-dwelling mammals. We are
talking
> > about *all* the species of whales and *all* the species of dolphins and
> > porpoises. Each of which has some slightly different variation on these
> > vestigial features. The pelvic bones, for example, turn up in some
whales
> > but not all, and within a species, some individuals have more or less of
the
> > pelvis remnants.
>
> All bones are evidence for the theory of evolution. Those bones
> located in whales are just as much evidence for the theory as the
> bones located in humans and birds and dolphins.
Amen to that brother.
>
> > In addition, we are talking about *all* of the pinnipeds, in some lesser
> > degree, reflecting their facultative aquatic natures. It is the whole
> > preponderance of evidence of structures and organs which can be traced
> > throughout multiple lineages of plants and animals.
>
> Every structure, every organ, every plant, every animal, constitutes
> evidence for the theory of evolution.
This is boring. Don't you what to know how or why? Oh, wait I forgot, you
have no interest in those sorts of questions. In fact, you want the
questions to go away, don't you?
>
> > Then again, we are also talking about many, many other organisms,
indeed, we
> > are talking about all of the more or less 10 million species of
organisms on
> > earth and the tens of milions of extinct organisms as well.
>
> Talk about _a lot_ of evidence for the theory of evolution.
No shit.
>
> > *All* of which
> > bear evidence of their history in their vestigial and non-vestigial
organs
> > and structures. The rays of a sunflower, for example, are vestigial
flowers.
> > In some species (there are many species of sunflowers) the rays include
> > little tiny non-functional pistils (female flower parts), and in some,
they
> > are missing altogether. The tropical bougainvillea plant has bright red,
> > purple, or orange flowers. But wait, the brightly colored "petals" are
> > actually modified leaves, and the "flower" is a slender nondescript tube
> > enclosed in the flower. Some of the species in this group have no
special
> > coloration on the "petals" and do in fact, look a lot like a leaf. The
> > cactus plant has spines in place of leaves. Actually, we can see that
the
> > spines are simply modified leaves, so the leaves never disappeared at
all.
>
> Sunflowers, tropical plants, petals, leaves, tubes, and spines are all
> evidence of the theory of evolution. Evidence for the theory
> surrounds us.
It's really quite incredible that there are any
> creationists given this overwhelmingly massive amount of evidence for
> the theory of evolution.
Sometimes I admit, I am frustrated. But then I realize there are people who
just as stubbornly cling to the most ridiculous notions. UFOs, alien
abductions, "faces" on Mars (and now even bunnies), a flat earth, a
geocentric universe, ghosts, leprechauns, pixies, the Loch Ness Monster, Big
Foot, vampires, werewolves, global corporate conspiracies, the superiority
of the white race, Marxisim-Leninism, crystals, pyramids, aromatherapy, and
many, many more. Creationists are in good company (er, I guess).
Frank
In my view, I don't accept that intelligent entities had anything to do with
it. But define "minor" and "massive".
>
> If your response to the first question was "yes," and if your response
> to the second question was "no," at which point do you draw the line--
> at which level of an intelligence's involvement does a process cease
> to be "evolution"?
Why don't you answer your own question, David. I'm an atheist. I don't buy
into tinkering of any level. If you have emperical evidence of tinkering,
provide it.
>
> In your view, if an intelligent entity created the physical universe,
> and made the physical universe such that the universe would give rise
> to life, and made the universe such that that life would give rise to
> the biological world of which we are aware, would the biological world
> be the product of "evolution"?
Does it make a difference at the end of the day? If the processes can be
explained through science, then so be it. Evolution means change.
>
>> However, they know
>> perfectly well that the scientific method cannot investigate this sort of
>> divine tinkering and feel that evolutionary theory best explains the
>> evidence, and do not feel that it violates any fundemental spiritual
>> precepts they may hold.
>
> In your view, does "evolutionary theory" make provision for/ allow/
> permit an intelligent entity tinkering here and there with a process
> resulting in new organisms?
The current theory does not, because there is no evidence for such
tinkering.
> In your view, does "evolutionary theory" allow for an intelligent
> entity massively manipulating a process resulting in new organisms?
> In your view, does "evolutionary theory" allow for an intelligent
> entity setting up a system such that that system gives rise to the
> biological world of which we are aware?
David, you know the answer perfectly well. Why are you asking the same
question over and over?
>
>> Science cannot eliminate the possibility that someone/something tinkered
>> with evolution.
>
> Can science eliminate the possibility that a process was set up by an
> intelligent entity such that the process would give rise to all of
> biology?
> Can science eliminate the possibility that an intelligent entity
> massively manipulated a process resulting in new organisms?
It really depends on the entity. If we're talking about an omnipotent
being, then no, science cannot. You do know how science functions and why
it functions the way it does, don't you?
>
>> If it's 2001 Space Odyssey-style aliens, then evidence
>> should be forthcoming to show when and where they made changes. If it's
>> your Judeao-Christian creator god, then science cannot touch it. I could be
>> wrong, of course, David. All you have to do is provide me with a means by
>> which the claim that said creator god did what Creationists here think he
>> did can be falsified.
I note you left this last bit unanswered.
Well I have a couple things to say about that, in no particular order:
1) I have a hard time understanding the problem an omnipotent being
would have with using a strategy of physical signs only. 2) Why should
it be all physical signs or none? Why not some of each? 3) Generally
when a father wants to teach his children something he explains it to
them directly rather than playing little hide and seek games. 4)
Generally when someone wants to have a closer relationship with
someone else he talks to that person and gets to know them rather than
playing hide and seek games. 5) If this spiritual plight you mention
refers to the Fall, generally fathers (even the ones who aren't
omniscient) don't leave poison apples hanging around where their
children might eat them.
That's pretty evident from the answer below.
> Submarines were designed by intelligent humans. Are you saying that
> intelligence is responsible for the streamlined bodies of sharks,
> dolphins, and whales, just as it's responsible for streamlined
> submarines?
No, why would you get that idea?
Streamlined bodies of sharks, dolphins, whales, and subs are all the
result of form following function. Non-streamlined shapes don't work well
for an object that is moving throught the water at relatively high speeds.
It's a condition that's imposed on the form, by the function. Remember that
early submarines, ones that spent more time on the surface than under water,
were shaped less like whales, and more like surface ships. The function
dictated the form.
> Are you saying that intelligence was responsible for thinking up the
> idea of function (traveling speedily underwater), and then thought up
> a streamlined form in submarines and sharks to obtain that function?
Again, you seem to have deliberately misunderstood my point. Intelligence
is not responsible for the streamlined shape of fast moving undersea
creatures, it's the physical properties of water and how objects more easily
move through that water. Modern subs are designed like whales, not because
someone thought that streamlined shapes are more efficient for travel under
water, but by the fact that streamlined shapes do move more efficiently
under water. Modern nuclear subs, without the need to surface for
refueling, operating diesel engines on the surface to recharge the
batteries, etc, have become whale like. Early gasoline/electric and later
diesel/electric subs were shaped more for surface travel, in another case of
form following function. In living creatures, the bodies of fast underwater
swimmers are shaped by natural selection, which invariably follows the rules
of physics. A creature with a more streamlined shape is going to be able to
swim faster, and with less muscle usage. Form follows function.
> Are you saying that mind-less processes are responsible for
> submarines, whales, dolphins, and sharks?
Exactly. Fluid dynamics is 'mindless'. Any process of design,
intentional, or not, is going to have to follow the laws of physics that
govern movement of underwater objects.
> Are you saying that mind-less processes [or: both mind-less processes
> and intelligence] make use of the concept of "form follows function"?
Yes, basically. Mindless processes must work in conjuction with physical
laws, just like intentional processes. That's why many forms of animals
have been used and re-used throughout history.
>
> > I don't know of any
> > biologist who explains convergent evolution on transpositions of genetic
> > material.
>
> I said that [df]"blindwatchmakingists would love to be able to invoke
> transposition."
I suppose, whatever a "blindwatchmakingist" is. However, biologists only
deal with what's possible, and what's likely. Transpositions of genetic
material, in vertibrates, is very rare. Also, there is rarely any need for
invoking transposition of genes, the nature, and constraint of physical
properties is a much simpler explanation for the convergent evolution we
see.
>
> > > Transposition would make their
> > > explanations far more economical, but the structures always have
> > > differing features that prevent such an "explanation." An intelligent
> > > designer or designers could conceivably have made biology so that
> > > those advancing a mind-less accounting for organisms have to make
> > > themselves jump through many more hoops to account for numerous
> > > origins of extremely complicated organs and structures and pathways,
> > > for example eyes, bioluminescence, and light sensitive spots. It's a
> > > monkeywrench thrown at anti-designer explanations of biology, and a
> > > good approach should the designer(s) wish to be given credit for
> > > its/their work.
> >
> > However it doesn't make sense, for an "intelligent designer" to create
many
> > separate designs to do the same function.
>
> If I had the ability to create many different designs of buildings to
> do the same function (protect people from the elements), I'd do it
> given a large enough salary for doing so.
If you were trying to leave clues that you were the creator of all of them,
why would you make so many separate designs to do the same function?
> If I had the ability to create many different designs of cars to do
> the same function (carry people around), and I got a large enough
> sense of satisfaction and achievement in creating all those different
> car designs, I would do it for nothing.
> But hey, that's just me.
But assuming you were trying to show that there is only one creator, why so
many different forms? Why duplicate designs where duplication doesn't make
sense. for example, why not give dolphins gills, instead of using the same
mammilian lungs as their land dwelling cousins?
>
> > Consider the dolphin and the
> > shark again. If you want a seagoing, fish eating predator, and you
already
> > have a design for such a creature, that's been very successful for
millions
> > of years, why come up with an entirely new design,on the same lines,
with an
> > entirely different physical requirements, and that requires coming to
the
> > surface to breathe?
>
> Maybe because I'm bored.
Does God get bored?
> Maybe because I like to see what else I can create, and I enjoy
> creating and watching in action that which I create.
Then why not simply allow mutation and natural selection to continue?
> Maybe because I like to see my creatures compete with each other in
> various ways.
Maybe you are a cold hearted bastard, that enjoys watching creatures killing
each other? If not, why the complex predator/prey relationships?
> Maybe because I was going to kill off the first creature shortly and
> wanted something in the wings ready to take its place.
Again, doesn't that make you something of a cold hearted bastard?
> Maybe because I wanted to try out a new design concept I'd been
> mulling over in my mind for the preceding 20,000 years.
Maybe you shouldn't try to ascribe human thought processes to a supernatural
being?
>
> > Why would a designer come up with a dozen or more
> > different forms of saber toothed predators, all with different close
> > relatives?
>
> I'm not that familiar with [DT]"saber toothed predators." What
> distinguishes the [DT]"dozen or more different forms of saber toothed
> predators" from each other?
How about doing some research on your own?
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/carnivora/sabretooth.html
http://www.paleocraft.com/thylacosmilus.html
http://www.stevecooke.connectfree.co.uk/creodont.htm
The sabre toothed form evolved several different times, in several different
linages, including a marsupial version. Why not just pick one, and stick
with it?
>
> > If you had a perfectly good design for a wolf, why recreate that
> > design as a marsupial, with a radically different reproductive system, a
few
> > continents over?
>
> For the different continent part, perhaps I put my marsupial wolf on a
> separate continent from my placental wolf because if they were on the
> same continent, my placental wolf would overrun my marsupial wolf, and
> I don't want that to happen, at least not right away.
What makes you think a placental wolf would overrun a marsupial wolf-like
form? Why not just make the marsupial wolf a little more hardy?
> As for re-creating a wolf design around a different reproductive
> system, reasons similar to the [df]"Maybe...." possibilities presented
> above could be reasons for doing so.
Maybe you are just making this up as you go along?
DJT
Strategy to acheive what? Information that God exists? I have said
that it would be fine for that. Drawing people into repentence? No,
why should it? Why should the fact that the world was made by space
aliens make us want to submit our hearts and wills to them? Same
applies to sky-pixies or any other less-than-God caracatures of deity
that infest alt.atheism. If God is who Christians say He is, which is
the premise of this discussion, then He is more than just a maker and
has an entirely different aganda from merely wishing to inform us that
He exists.
>2) Why should it be all physical signs or none? Why not some of each?
"Each" being what exactly? We were talking specifically about whether
He would be expected to leave physical signs after Creation. If you
are proposing a scenario where God uses inner, subjective things to
make you aware of Him then yes, that's what He does. Conscience
amongst other things, is directly relevant to His agenda, the Big Bang
is not.
>3) Generally
>when a father wants to teach his children something he explains it to
>them directly rather than playing little hide and seek games.
I wonder how many times I will have to repeat this. The question
assumed *Christian* theology, God's agenda is not merely to inform but
to win sinful hearts over to Himself.
>4) Generally when someone wants to have a closer relationship with
>someone else he talks to that person and gets to know them rather than
>playing hide and seek games.
ditto
>5) If this spiritual plight you mention
>refers to the Fall, generally fathers (even the ones who aren't
>omniscient) don't leave poison apples hanging around where their
>children might eat them.
Most fathers aren't creators of universes nor of human beings nor
givers of free will. Besides which it was a banana.
I suppose this may apply to a generic creationist "you" more than
yourself. I have not read all of your posts and do not intend to so.
If you assert that you have not argued from your belief in an
omnipotent god then I will accept that and retract the statement as it
applies to you.
Or are you just playing the "I never mentioned god" game? If so it is
an unworthy subterfuge.
> > This position brings into sharp relief
> > how wildly disanalogous are the human's and designer's respective
> > "intelligences." If the god of Christianity exists then surely it is
> > of such a constitution that we cannot even imagine its totality, much
> > less think as it does.
>
> Does the [R]"god of Christianity" think that 2 + 2 equals 4?
> Does the [R]"god of Christianity" think that a rock dropped from a
> second-story window will fall?
You tell me. Do you really believe an omnipotent god, a god who exists
outside of, in fact created, the laws of the universe can be
constrained by these concerns? Does he/she/it really think as you or I
would?
> > But wait a minute. As it suits your needs, you'll turn around and
> > argue as if the designer is of a more mundane makeup. Perhaps if he
> > (df)"had the ability to create many different designs of buildings to
> > do the same function (protect people from the elements)," he would.
> > Could be that if he (df)"got a large enough sense of satisfaction and
> > achievement in creating all those different car designs" he would do
> > that too. Heck he might even scratch his head and think (I
> > should)(df)"put my marsupial wolf on a separate continent from my
> > placental wolf because if they were on the same continent, my
> > placental wolf would overrun my marsupial wolf, and I don't want that
> > to happen, at least not right away" revealing his arrant inability to
> > plan ahead when creating the wolves in the first place.
>
> Though I haven't created a wolf, I suspect that much planning would be
> needed to create one.
> Perhaps you're in a better position to know. Have you ever created a
> wolf, or know someone who has that we can ask?
> Perhaps a wolf is stretching things a bit-- have you ever created a
> spider, or know someone who has that we can ask?
> Perhaps even a spider is stretching things a bit-- have you ever
> created a bacterium, or know someone who has that we can ask about the
> level of planning involved in creating a bacterium?
You do realize you are making my point for me, right? Let me restate
it, you cheapen your creator by equating his purposes, qualities, and
thought processes with those of fallible humans. Humans screw up,
humans can be emotionally scarred, not to mention scared. Humans even
make up origin stories to ease their metaphysical discomfort (not
yours of course).
So when you argue that my inexperience with ex nihilo creation leaves
my opinion on that act no better informed than yours I wholeheartedly
agree. That is the point. It staggers me that so many creationists are
willing to impute actions or purposes to their god as if they are
speaking by proxy. (I guess the whole "personal relationship with god"
thing might be the origin of this. Are we supposed to think that a
perfect, omnipotent god spends his time slugging Dr. Pepper and
swapping recipes with all of those who appear to claim to speak for
him?)
> > Are you really satisfied with this kind of argument?
>
> I try to steer clear of inconsistency. If my arguments and claims are
> seen by me to be inconsistent, then I'm not satisfied. Something must
> go, or be altered, or be added, to correct the situation.
I value consistency highly as well. But it is also important to value
reason. You do realize it is possible for your chain of logic to be
entirely consistent while also being wrong?
> > Is this really
> > the god you worship? He may be a helluva nice guy but the first thing
> > I'd do is ask him if he's got two tens for a five.
> >
> > Let me give you a bit of free advice. ID guys should never, ever, ever
> > offer anything that in any way reveals qualities, purposes, calibers,
> > or functions of their designer.
>
> Whatever designer(s) was/were responsible for the universe, which
> began to exist in the creation-out-of-nothing event that was the Big
> Bang, it/they was/were extremely intelligent. Feynman's knowledge of
> physics was puny compared with the knowledge of physics that was
> possessed by the creator(s) of physics.
Of course, this continues to make my point. And even Feynman would
probably have been loathe to impute specific thoughts or actions to
it/they. (By the way the above comes dangerously close to satisfying
your demand that I produce an example of you arguing overarching
omnipotence. Sadly, though, not close enough for an "Aha, gotcha!")
> > To do so is to immediately blunder
> > into the wet cement of contradiction. Either you hopelessly dilute the
> > inscrutable majesty of god by equating his intelligence with that of
> > humdrum humans, or you invalidate ID's only argument from analogy.
> > Always remember, the one (and only) strength of ID is its complete
> > lack of content. Say nothing specific, avoid testable claims, and
> > repeat this mantra, "I never said anything about god. Who's talking
> > about religion, not me!"
>
> [R]"avoid testable claims" In your view, has intelligent design
> theory been falsified?
> Have any ID claims been falsified?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
robert
[...]
>> > This position brings into sharp relief
>> > how wildly disanalogous are the human's and designer's respective
>> > "intelligences." If the god of Christianity exists then surely it is
>> > of such a constitution that we cannot even imagine its totality, much
>> > less think as it does.
>>
>> Does the [R]"god of Christianity" think that 2 + 2 equals 4?
>> Does the [R]"god of Christianity" think that a rock dropped from a
>> second-story window will fall?
>
>You tell me. Do you really believe an omnipotent god, a god who exists
>outside of, in fact created, the laws of the universe can be
>constrained by these concerns? Does he/she/it really think as you or I
>would?
There's only *one* way of thinking properly. 2 + 2 = 4 always,
everywhere: provided it's arithmetic and not just pretty patterns on
paper (though, come to think of it, I don't really like the look of
the "4").
Perhaps, maybe it was a case of mistaken ideity.
But, no, I was thinking of the Christian god. The problem I was
attempting to illuminate is that it seems to me that everything
Christianity tells us, everything about his thoughts, himself,
revealed truth, etc. is mutually exclusive with the notions of
omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. To be everywhere, know
everything and be able to do anything seems pretty close to having no
limits whatsoever. Certainly the Bible, rife as it is with godly
limits and contradiction, is incompatible with the idea of an
omnipotent god.
My point to david was that his ID evangelism is endangered every time
he opts to suggest what god would do or how god would think. My larger
point is that it is an inherent contradiction for Christianity to
claim an omnipotent, yet understandable god. Arguments to the contrary
seem to me to rely either on a diminution of the perfection of god, or
exegesis from a source whose origin is covered with the fingerprints
of fallible humanity.
> [...]
>
> >ID guys should never, ever, ever
> >offer anything that in any way reveals qualities, purposes, calibers,
> >or functions of their designer. To do so is to immediately blunder
> >into the wet cement of contradiction. Either you hopelessly dilute the
> >inscrutable majesty of god by equating his intelligence with that of
> >humdrum humans, or you invalidate ID's only argument from analogy.
>
> Since the Christian position is that we *can* understand God, it is
> worth considering what "understand" means. Understanding is not an
> esoteric self-contained system: God's attributes can be discussed with
> ordinary language, concepts and reasoning. They can be compared with
> other, "natural", things. That is the nature of "the God of
> Christianity's" "inscrutability" - He is really very think-about-able.
If you leave out the omnipotence.
> Since His revealed attributes can be thought about easily, it is not
> unreasonable to think speculatively about Him. We can also think about
> the way *He* thinks. Of course, we cannot know what God's "brain" is
> made of or how it works, but we can perfectly legitimately say what
> problems He creates for Himself and what His solutions might be -
> whether His choices are constrained by the situation that He has
> chosen to create or whether He can do pretty much as He fancies just
> for the fun of it.
Well, he is a fun kinda guy.
> And, just in case anyone's losing the plot, using anthropomorphic
> analogy doesn't diminish the dignity of God. It is precisely because
> Reason is the same for God as it is for us that we can talk about "God
> scratching His head" without implying that He actually suffers
> perplexity while struggling with a problem.
I sometimes suffer the consequences of excessive sarcasm coupled with
a distaste for emoticons. Let me make it clear that my use of that
metaphor was to lampoon david's continued imputation of thoughts and
motives to his "designer."
But even if I wished to characterize god this way it would by no means
say anything about god. It would only say something about my human
limits. Similarly, it is not because we share reason with god that we
can speak of him. It is precisely the opposite. We stew in our fears,
we indulge fantasy, we look for patterns, and we seek comfort and
safety. In the process we think of, characterize and quantify god, and
by extension assume that reason is the same for him as it is for us.
So god becomes omnipotent to ease the difficulty of any worldly
danger, even mortality.
Truth to tell, I don't see this as all that troublesome. But
somewhere, somewhen, there were three guys sitting around a campfire
and one said, "you know, I think god is X." The second guy said, "I
dunno, I think god is more Y." The bother started when they turned to
the third guy and asked, "what do you think?" All he had to do was
mumble something about personal perspective and go back to gnawing on
his mammoth bone, but noooo.
robert
> [...]
Alright let me just address this point then, since it seems to be
central. My response is: a) The strategy you're suggesting is not the
best one, at least with regard to many people; and b) Strategies are
for beings that are constrained by circumstances to reach their
objectives in particular ways. Omnipotent beings shouldn't need
strategies.
Yes, it would be.
> > It is vestigial organs (whether they have no function, or a reduced
> > function, or a differnet function), however, that make one wonder about
the
> > intelligence of an intelligent designer. Why put finger bones in a
whale's
> > flippers?
>
> I would have thought that flipper bones are present in a whale's
> flippers, not finger bones.
> Upon what grounds do you allege that finger bones are present in a
> whale's flippers?
They are phalanges? Connected to metatarsals, connected to tarsals,
connected to a radius and ulna, connected to a humerus? There are five of
them?
What is the flip side of this?
CSI Chief: "Mr. Ford, what can you tell me about this femur? Was it
a male or a female, and what age?"
Investigator Ford:"How do you know it is a femur? Just because it is
very similar to a human femur does not make it a human femur, or
a bone at all."
CSI Chief: "I guess you are right!"
59 minutes of commercials.
> > Why put a pelvis in a whale?
>
> Upon what grounds do you allege that a pelvis is present in a whale?
Granted it is pretty reduced, but the fossil series shows quite clearly
the stages, allowing amateurs to draw the conclusion easily. I think
someone who knows anatomy somewhat better should be able to
identify it regardless upon close examination.
> > Why make an air-breathing obligately
> > aquatic mammal in the first place? Why not make just another big fish?
>
> Maybe out of boredom with what was already created.
Maybe he wanted to watch creationists make fools of themselves.
[snip]
> > The point is that we are not
> > just talking about a single odd species of an aquatic mammal with
vestigial
> > features that suggest an affinity with land-dwelling mammals. We are
talking
> > about *all* the species of whales and *all* the species of dolphins and
> > porpoises. Each of which has some slightly different variation on these
> > vestigial features. The pelvic bones, for example, turn up in some
whales
> > but not all, and within a species, some individuals have more or less of
the
> > pelvis remnants.
>
> All bones are evidence for the theory of evolution. Those bones
> located in whales are just as much evidence for the theory as the
> bones located in humans and birds and dolphins.
I think that it distinguishes between evolution and a certain
class of design - rational design. One could rationally assert that
femurs are designed for walking, but when femurs appear
in creatures that can't use them for walking, one has to wonder
why they were designed in *as femurs*. Whimsy is one
explanation. Is God whimsical? Is he just kidding about
the salvation and eternal life thing, too?
Yes, it is. Maybe it is because they really haven't looked. Why else
would they ask why a whale flipper has finger bones? How many finger
bones have you examined? What are the diagnostic features of
phalanges?
I have never seen a creationist display as much knowledge of biology
as I have (which is pathetic BTW).
Tracy P. Hamilton
Well, if you assume it's inspired pretty well verbatim you are in deep
trouble. I can't disagree with you about that. However Christianity is
not intrinsically fundamentalist-literalist.
>My point to david was that his ID evangelism is endangered every time
>he opts to suggest what god would do or how god would think.
>My larger
>point is that it is an inherent contradiction for Christianity to
>claim an omnipotent, yet understandable god. Arguments to the contrary
>seem to me to rely either on a diminution of the perfection of god, or
>exegesis from a source whose origin is covered with the fingerprints
>of fallible humanity.
I don't think anyone would claim to understand Him fully. But I do not
see why we shouldn't have a finite knowledge of Him. Christianity -
all branches AKAIK - maintains that He has chosen to make known some
important things about Himself. Why is that a problem?
As I think I said elsewhere, ID *does* diminish God - not because
knowing God (or God's knowability, take your pick) undermines His
infinite attributes, but simply because it is inappropriate for the
Creator to make that sort of banal world with clues littered about
either through carelessness or, worse still, because his basic design
wasn't good enough. I'm not presuming to know how God thinks, but I am
saying that His thoughts must logically conform to logic and values
and a load of other things. So in that respect I'm not convinced it's
mistaken of David to put himself in God's shoes.
>> [...]
>>
>> >ID guys should never, ever, ever
>> >offer anything that in any way reveals qualities, purposes, calibers,
>> >or functions of their designer. To do so is to immediately blunder
>> >into the wet cement of contradiction. Either you hopelessly dilute the
>> >inscrutable majesty of god by equating his intelligence with that of
>> >humdrum humans, or you invalidate ID's only argument from analogy.
>>
>> Since the Christian position is that we *can* understand God, it is
>> worth considering what "understand" means. Understanding is not an
>> esoteric self-contained system: God's attributes can be discussed with
>> ordinary language, concepts and reasoning. They can be compared with
>> other, "natural", things. That is the nature of "the God of
>> Christianity's" "inscrutability" - He is really very think-about-able.
>
>If you leave out the omnipotence.
Well, we're thinking about it right now. We might not be able to
*copy* it.
>> Since His revealed attributes can be thought about easily, it is not
>> unreasonable to think speculatively about Him. We can also think about
>> the way *He* thinks. Of course, we cannot know what God's "brain" is
>> made of or how it works, but we can perfectly legitimately say what
>> problems He creates for Himself and what His solutions might be -
>> whether His choices are constrained by the situation that He has
>> chosen to create or whether He can do pretty much as He fancies just
>> for the fun of it.
>
>Well, he is a fun kinda guy.
I think he probably *is* - in reality. Don't be put off by evil done
in His name or appalling doctrines that *are* in contradiction to the
main thrust of Christianity: redemptive love.
>> And, just in case anyone's losing the plot, using anthropomorphic
>> analogy doesn't diminish the dignity of God. It is precisely because
>> Reason is the same for God as it is for us that we can talk about "God
>> scratching His head" without implying that He actually suffers
>> perplexity while struggling with a problem.
>
>I sometimes suffer the consequences of excessive sarcasm coupled with
>a distaste for emoticons.
I am familiar with that experience. I have taken to using emoticons
from time to time to avoid problems with irony being lost on people.
It isn't a fully successful strategy as it tends to make me feel I can
be nastier and get away with it.
Using the *wrong* emoticon is sometimes entertaining.
[Waxing lyrical now] The thing I really hate is those wretched little
yellow smilie faces served up automatically on BBS when you type a
plain text emoticon. Damn it, some of them even move! They're
sickeningly cutesy, bandwith-wasting and they defeat the object.
Emoticons are supposed to be extremely concise ASCII art. The original
idea was clever. Those cartoon faces are just cringe-inducingly awful.
> Let me make it clear that my use of that
>metaphor was to lampoon david's continued imputation of thoughts and
>motives to his "designer."
I kinda worked that out.
>But even if I wished to characterize god this way it would by no means
>say anything about god. It would only say something about my human
>limits. Similarly, it is not because we share reason with god that we
>can speak of him. It is precisely the opposite. We stew in our fears,
>we indulge fantasy, we look for patterns, and we seek comfort and
>safety. In the process we think of, characterize and quantify god, and
>by extension assume that reason is the same for him as it is for us.
>So god becomes omnipotent to ease the difficulty of any worldly
>danger, even mortality.
Ah, well there's a mixed bunch of concepts.
Your theory of the origin of religious beliefs: no comment.
Reason *must* be the same for everyone, whether infinite or not, as it
is the ability to conform to absolute logic. If you maintain that an
omnipotent God can break logic (on the grounds that He can do
anything) than I submit you are not making sense. To parody a familiar
line: talking nonsense about God is not the same as talking about a
nonsensical God.
>Truth to tell, I don't see this as all that troublesome. But
>somewhere, somewhen, there were three guys sitting around a campfire
>and one said, "you know, I think god is X." The second guy said, "I
>dunno, I think god is more Y." The bother started when they turned to
>the third guy and asked, "what do you think?" All he had to do was
>mumble something about personal perspective and go back to gnawing on
>his mammoth bone, but noooo.
You may be right too. I seem to recall the demons in Paradise Lost
whiling away their time with theological discussions while The Boss
was away corrupting humanity.
You don't know that. Your assumption appears to be that most people
would jump at the chance to know God if they had proof He exists.
Christianity doesn't promote that view.
>and b) Strategies are
>for beings that are constrained by circumstances to reach their
>objectives in particular ways. Omnipotent beings shouldn't need
>strategies.
Of course they should. The circumstances that constrain include prior
choices God has made about what to create. How He goes about drawing
people back to Him when a) they have free-will b) they have abused
free-will c) they are in rebellion against Him d) they are due for
judgement e) God loves and died for, is a "problem" surrounded by
"constraints".
> "Frank Reichenbacher" <vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<H7CdnRqIx5L...@speakeasy.net>...
> > It is vestigial organs (whether they have no function, or a reduced
> > function, or a differnet function), however, that make one wonder about the
> > intelligence of an intelligent designer. Why put finger bones in a whale's
> > flippers?
>
> I would have thought that flipper bones are present in a whale's
> flippers, not finger bones.
> Upon what grounds do you allege that finger bones are present in a
> whale's flippers?
Skeletal evidence.
See
http://www2.ucsc.edu/seymourcenter/3.%20Whale%20Skeleton%20Activity.pdf
If you would. I'm also sure you can hunt up more
than your fair share of representations of fish
and shark fins and seal, porpoise and dolphin
flippers to compare it to.
> > Why put a pelvis in a whale?
>
> Upon what grounds do you allege that a pelvis is present in a whale?
As pointed out later, he means "pelvic *remnants*.
See
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/mpm_whale_limb.html
or
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html
for further details.
> > Why make an air-breathing obligately
> > aquatic mammal in the first place? Why not make just another big fish?
>
> Maybe out of boredom with what was already created.
You're assuming knowledge of the mind of God?
Nice sense of hubris you have, David. This is
nothing new coming from either an old-school
creationist or a "respectable" ID advocate,
but it's a nice indication of how silly they
can sound when they make claims of knowing
just *what* a deity was supposedly thinking
when Event X happened - especially when no
evidence for that assertion is presented.
> > You claim that it is arrogant to speak of the purpose of the designer, but
> > that is the purpose of science -- to question.
>
> I don't recall saying anything about arrogance.
Maybe not you *personally*, but you're fond of quoting
material that says as much:
news:<Pine.SGI.3.96.980225...@umbc9.umbc.edu>#1/1
>[Mark A. Ludwig, _Computer Viruses, Artificial Life and
>Evolution_ (1993), 303.]"The scientist who buys into
>materialistic naturalism has decided that there are no
>supernatural phenomena. He has closed a door that science by
>itself cannot close. Then he usually turns around and calls that
>decision 'scientific' as if to give it respectability. This is
>the height of arrogance."
That would seem to be an impugning of supposed "arrogance"
on the part of scientists, at least how both you and Ludwig
intended it.
Of course, you're the one claiming - and I hope it's
flippantly - that God created whales because He was
"bored", so arrogance is largely a matter of perspec-
tive, IMHO.
-Chris Krolczyk
I'm not a "theistic evolutionist," am not familiar with "theistic
evolutionist" thought, and decline to distinguish between
a) tinkering here and there, and
b) massive manipulation.
[AC]"I don't accept that intelligent entities had anything to do with
it" I take it you agree with me that "evolution" is a process not
directed in any way at any level by intelligence.
>> If your response to the first question was "yes," and if your
response
>> to the second question was "no," at which point do you draw the
line--
>> at which level of an intelligence's involvement does a process
cease
>> to be "evolution"?
>
> Why don't you answer your own question, David. I'm an atheist. I don't buy
> into tinkering of any level. If you have emperical evidence of tinkering,
> provide it.
[AC]"Why don't you answer your own question" My follow-up question
was predicated on a "yes" and then a "no" answer, respectively, to my
previous two questions. Your response amounted to two "no"s (and I
concur with those responses). The conditions for my follow-up
question aren't met.
Perhaps an individual that considers himself or herself a "theistic
evolutionist" could step forward and explain their position without
using the word "evolution" or any of its derivatives.
Now, to go back to something you stated previously, [AC]"I know at
least three theistic evolutionists who do believe that God was
involved in evolution, tinkering here and there," I maintain that the
following proposition is incoherent:
God (an intelligent entity) directed evolution (a
non-intelligence-directed-at-any-level process).
>> In your view, if an intelligent entity created the physical
universe,
>> and made the physical universe such that the universe would give
rise
>> to life, and made the universe such that that life would give rise
to
>> the biological world of which we are aware, would the biological
world
>> be the product of "evolution"?
>
> Does it make a difference at the end of the day? If the processes can be
> explained through science, then so be it. Evolution means change.
[AC]"Does it make a difference at the end of the day?" No, but it
might make a difference at the beginning of the next day.
I do not know whether the idea that an intelligent entity created the
universe in the manner speculated above is compatible with the atheist
stance.
[AC]"If the processes can be explained through science" Please
rephrase, without using the word "science."
>>> However, they know
>>> perfectly well that the scientific method cannot investigate this
sort of
>>> divine tinkering and feel that evolutionary theory best explains
the
>>> evidence, and do not feel that it violates any fundemental
spiritual
>>> precepts they may hold.
>>
>> In your view, does "evolutionary theory" make provision for/ allow/
>> permit an intelligent entity tinkering here and there with a
process
>> resulting in new organisms?
>
> The current theory does not, because there is no evidence for such
> tinkering.
In light of this clarification, I'll rephrase a comment of yours:
The aforementioned 3 individuals feel that evolution theory (which
doesn't envision any involvement whatsoever by intelligence) best
explains the evidence.
In response, I suspect that the 3 individuals would disagree with this
statement. Of course, the question of whether they agree with the
statement is best answered by them.
>> In your view, does "evolutionary theory" allow for an intelligent
>> entity massively manipulating a process resulting in new organisms?
>> In your view, does "evolutionary theory" allow for an intelligent
>> entity setting up a system such that that system gives rise to the
>> biological world of which we are aware?
>
> David, you know the answer perfectly well. Why are you asking the same
> question over and over?
The questions weren't the same, but instead differed:
one was about tinkering,
the second was about massive manipulation, and
the last one was about manipulation of an initial setup.
You correctly supplied 3 "no"s in response to the questions.
Perhaps a "theistic evolutionist" would have answered
differently/incorrectly.
>>> Science cannot eliminate the possibility that someone/something
tinkered
>>> with evolution.
>>
>> Can science eliminate the possibility that a process was set up by
an
>> intelligent entity such that the process would give rise to all of
>> biology?
>> Can science eliminate the possibility that an intelligent entity
>> massively manipulated a process resulting in new organisms?
>
> It really depends on the entity. If we're talking about an omnipotent
> being, then no, science cannot.
How about a semi-potent being?
(For reference, the Judeo-Christian God is said to be "omnipotent," or
"capable of doing anything that can logically be done and that is
consistent with His other attributes." This God can't make a square
triangle, because "square triangle" is not logically consistent and is
gibberish.)
> You do know how science functions and why
> it functions the way it does, don't you?
Nope. You will, I trust, recall that I am a creationist.
>>> If it's 2001 Space Odyssey-style aliens, then evidence
>>> should be forthcoming to show when and where they made changes.
If it's
>>> your Judeao-Christian creator god, then science cannot touch it.
I could
>>> be wrong, of course, David. All you have to do is provide me with
a means
>>> by which the claim that said creator god did what Creationists
here think
>>> he did can be falsified.
>
> I note you left this last bit unanswered.
I note that you are observant.
Hopefully until it can be understood, if possible.
> The question
> >> assumed *Christian* theology, God's agenda is not merely to inform but
> >> to win sinful hearts over to Himself.
> >
> >Alright let me just address this point then, since it seems to be
> >central. My response is: a) The strategy you're suggesting is not the
> >best one, at least with regard to many people;
>
> You don't know that. Your assumption appears to be that most people
> would jump at the chance to know God if they had proof He exists.
> Christianity doesn't promote that view.
Actually, Cirbryn said "many", not "most"...a big difference. And I
share his/her view. I made the unfortunate mistake in my earlier post
of stressing with the term "*only*" in regards to proof of god's
existence. I didn't think that through. What I do think works best
for some of us is the "some of each" strategy...the two pieces of
information of (A) Here I am (God) and (B) Here's what I'm about.
Either one by itself is not very useful.
What we do have is (B) and not (A). For me, without (A), (B) is just
a fantasy of mankind, nothing more. And there are many conflicting
versions of these fantasies. At most, only one of them can be real,
and since *all* of them have been expressed by humans, (A) becomes
absolutely necessary in sorting this all out. Without (A), no story
is any better then any other, and they are all suspect. Surely the
real god(s), if any, can see that.
>
> >and b) Strategies are
> >for beings that are constrained by circumstances to reach their
> >objectives in particular ways. Omnipotent beings shouldn't need
> >strategies.
>
> Of course they should. The circumstances that constrain include prior
> choices God has made about what to create. How He goes about drawing
> people back to Him when a) they have free-will b) they have abused
> free-will c) they are in rebellion against Him d) they are due for
> judgement e) God loves and died for, is a "problem" surrounded by
> "constraints".
Apparently you think that one of these constraints is that god must
remain hidden. So far I don't think you've answered the question of
"Why not some of each?" (unless I missed it).
As far as your list above:
a) I'm not convinced I have free will. Free will would seem to
include (among other things) the ability for me to have 100% control
over my emotions 100% of the time. I haven't been able to achieve
that. I'd like to know who has. I'd like that skill.
b) I don't understand "abused free will", unless you mean doing things
that others don't like, and sure...I'm guilty of that.
c) I'm not in rebellion. There's nothing to rebel against, or so it
seems.
d) You mean judgement beyond what family and society place on me
regularly? If this is in regards to eternal life, then that's yet
another thing I suspect is not real. Why should I think it is?
e) I don't understand this either. Any and all gods are currently
figments of my imagination, and I don't have the slightest clue how
one can have a "relationship" with such imaginary beings.
The bottom line is that if the primary goal is to "draw people back",
there seems to be a simple, foolproof formula for this, at least in my
case. Yet that's not the formula that is used, for some reason that
is still beyond my understanding.
I agree wholeheartedly. While I would argue the logic behind religion,
as opposed to say, spirituality, I find it easy to respect the faith
and opinions of non-literalists. It's a bit more dicey with the
literalists, if only because for them answers to difficult problems
come pre-packaged and ready to mix. It's hard to hold a conversation
with someone who knows the answer to a question you have yet to ask.
>
> >My point to david was that his ID evangelism is endangered every time
> >he opts to suggest what god would do or how god would think.
>
> >My larger
> >point is that it is an inherent contradiction for Christianity to
> >claim an omnipotent, yet understandable god. Arguments to the contrary
> >seem to me to rely either on a diminution of the perfection of god, or
> >exegesis from a source whose origin is covered with the fingerprints
> >of fallible humanity.
>
> I don't think anyone would claim to understand Him fully. But I do not
> see why we shouldn't have a finite knowledge of Him. Christianity -
> all branches AKAIK - maintains that He has chosen to make known some
> important things about Himself. Why is that a problem?
Well, pick an attribute, a quality, a datum point if you will. Pick
anything that you can know about god, save that he is boundless,
omnipresent and omnipotent (this, to me, is virtually equivalent to
saying one knows nothing of god). He loves us, he wants us to love
him, he is a "he", he is not a "he", he likes fungili (yes, I just
like to say "fungili"). Any physical description implies limitation,
if he is a "he", then he is not those things that are not he, etc. Any
intangible (emotional) application implies those things that engender
emotions, such as needs and desires and those in turn imply
limitations (i.e. why would god want our worship?).
Again, let me stress that I find nothing contradictory here if one
does not aver the omnipotence of one's deity. Of course there arise
new philosophical inconveniences if one allows for the imperfection of
the deity, but somehow it's easier for me to get with the idea of a
god who forgets where he left his wallet.
> As I think I said elsewhere, ID *does* diminish God - not because
> knowing God (or God's knowability, take your pick) undermines His
> infinite attributes, but simply because it is inappropriate for the
> Creator to make that sort of banal world with clues littered about
> either through carelessness or, worse still, because his basic design
> wasn't good enough. I'm not presuming to know how God thinks, but I am
> saying that His thoughts must logically conform to logic and values
> and a load of other things. So in that respect I'm not convinced it's
> mistaken of David to put himself in God's shoes.
I'm not about to disagree with you about the vacuity of ID, but I
think you would be hard pressed to make the case (or I'm too stubborn
to see it) that ID presents a more banal worldview than garden-variety
creationism, or mainstream Christianity, or any other religious
doctrine for that matter (but that's another discussion, I suppose).
Don't you see how, well, value-laden a term like *values* is? To me it
seems a bit provincial to assume that any values, even those we hold
sacrosanct, must indeed be universal, not to mention infinite and
divine. Likewise I think one can say the same for logic, although in
that case I might need to fall back on that opprobrious refuge, the
multiverse.
Maybe I'm too philosophically spineless to accept the idea of
universal constants outside of physics (and there again we've got that
whole multiverse thing) but this entire line of reasoning strikes me
as nothing more than human hubris.
(As to convincing you, I'm not even sure I've convinced myself yet,
but I started this thing and I'm gonna see it through)
<snip>
>> Since His revealed attributes can be thought about easily, it is
not
> >> unreasonable to think speculatively about Him. We can also think about
> >> the way *He* thinks. Of course, we cannot know what God's "brain" is
> >> made of or how it works, but we can perfectly legitimately say what
> >> problems He creates for Himself and what His solutions might be -
> >> whether His choices are constrained by the situation that He has
> >> chosen to create or whether He can do pretty much as He fancies just
> >> for the fun of it.
> >
> >Well, he is a fun kinda guy.
>
> I think he probably *is* - in reality. Don't be put off by evil done
> in His name or appalling doctrines that *are* in contradiction to the
> main thrust of Christianity: redemptive love.
I am no more put off Christianity by evil done under it's banner than
I am convinced that redemptive love is a concept that washes,
logically or spiritually.
How did that sneak in there? Yes, I suppose that's a discussion for
another time (although I think it's really where all the action is).
> Reason *must* be the same for everyone, whether infinite or not, as it
> is the ability to conform to absolute logic. If you maintain that an
> omnipotent God can break logic (on the grounds that He can do
> anything) than I submit you are not making sense. To parody a familiar
> line: talking nonsense about God is not the same as talking about a
> nonsensical God.
On the off chance that some of this disagreement might balance on the
word "reason" I pulled up some definitions that could apply (noun and
verb).
- The capacity for rational thought or inference or discrimination
- The state of having good sense and sound judgment
- A fact that logically justifies some premise or conclusion
- Draw or come to a conclusion
- Think logically
It is my assumption that you would base an assertion of the ubiquity
of reason on ideas such as the third and the fifth, those that stress
logic as you have. Though not educated in formal logic, I hold what I
consider to be logic, something like linear, evidentially supported
chain of inference (is my ignorance showing?) in great regard. But I
still cannot see that it is anything more than hubris to suggest that
an omnipotent deity must be constrained by what you or I consider
universal. An omnipotent deity, a universe creating entity, is
extra-universal and thus not constrained by those laws, logic and all.
An entity that exists within, or interacts with, our universe is
summarily qualified as limited, if only because it needed to interact
with natural processes to effect purposes, and is therefore not
omnipotent.
Put another way, I can see the concept of divine omnipotence as being
compatible with spirituality (though not my own), but to me it seems
contradictory with organized religion. From what I can tell, organized
religion may be useful in structuring community, and it may help in
contributing discipline through moral instruction, but it doesn't
really seem to be good at connecting people with god (if in fact he's
there to pick up).
robert
<snip>
I am an 82 year old Christian lady. I am interested in a wide variety of
topics and am a retired RN.
http://community.webtv.net/JOJOYD/BigDiscusser
Jesus loves you.
John Chap 1 v 3
Colossians Chap 1 v 16, 17--defeats evolution with ADAPTATION by Jesus
who is IN His creation (not evolution) plus scientifically untouchable
classic morality, equals the DIVINE SYNTHESIS.
MUSLIMS NEED JESUS CHRIST AS THE SON OF GOD ALMIGHTY, and follow His Way
of Love with us, worshipping in their own Mosques.
>It's hard to hold a conversation
>with someone who knows the answer to a question you have yet to ask.
42
Ah. I guess it depends exactly what one means by "omni-". I don't know
who invented the word "omnipotent" for example, but I'm pretty sure
that most theologians mean much the same thing. They don't, for
example, mean God can do "anything", they mean that God is
all-powerful. I put "anything" in quotes because this is what people
say, but it all depends what you mean by anything. What is a do-able
thing? I cannot fly to the moon, but it is logically do-able, just
impossible physically. I also cannot make 2+2=5 and would not be able
to in any world. I have to say, I do not believe in worlds where logic
does not rule, if they existed we would not be able to say anything
about them - or rather we could say anything at all about them and
whatever we said would be both true and false and meaningless. I do
not think anyone means *that* about God when they aver His
omnipotence.
>> As I think I said elsewhere, ID *does* diminish God - not because
>> knowing God (or God's knowability, take your pick) undermines His
>> infinite attributes, but simply because it is inappropriate for the
>> Creator to make that sort of banal world with clues littered about
>> either through carelessness or, worse still, because his basic design
>> wasn't good enough. I'm not presuming to know how God thinks, but I am
>> saying that His thoughts must logically conform to logic and values
>> and a load of other things. So in that respect I'm not convinced it's
>> mistaken of David to put himself in God's shoes.
>
>I'm not about to disagree with you about the vacuity of ID, but I
>think you would be hard pressed to make the case (or I'm too stubborn
>to see it) that ID presents a more banal worldview than garden-variety
>creationism, or mainstream Christianity, or any other religious
>doctrine for that matter (but that's another discussion, I suppose).
Well, there's no need to start awarding points. Again it depends on
what you mean by mainstream Christianity. I've been using it to mean
the most important teachings. If you are thinking in terms of revering
ancient rituals I'd agree wholeheartedly. But I would say this -
Christianity, the teaching that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and
came to save sinners - is extraordinarily banal *IF* it gets itself
tangled up with the twin curses of Christianity: obsession with
legalism and hell-fire preaching. Mere literalism and creationism are
just icing on the cake. If, however, it leads to an understanding of
the *character* of God it is utterly sublime and knocks spots off
anything an introspecttive spirituality offers.
>Don't you see how, well, value-laden a term like *values* is? To me it
>seems a bit provincial to assume that any values, even those we hold
>sacrosanct, must indeed be universal, not to mention infinite and
>divine. Likewise I think one can say the same for logic, although in
>that case I might need to fall back on that opprobrious refuge, the
>multiverse.
Can't agree. Multiuniverse theories are by definition subject to
logic, thus anything you say about the other universes must be
logical. So as long as what you're saying is *true*, the universes
themselves must be logical.
I agree the term "values" ia value-laden. I use it in the
"traditional" sense implying that there is an absolute morality to
which true values conform and to which human values hopefully aspire.
Sorry if you don't believe in such things.
>Maybe I'm too philosophically spineless to accept the idea of
>universal constants outside of physics (and there again we've got that
>whole multiverse thing) but this entire line of reasoning strikes me
>as nothing more than human hubris.
>
>(As to convincing you, I'm not even sure I've convinced myself yet,
>but I started this thing and I'm gonna see it through)
Are you sure you don't believe in eternal torment? :)
[...]
>On the off chance that some of this disagreement might balance on the
>word "reason" I pulled up some definitions that could apply (noun and
>verb).
>
>- The capacity for rational thought or inference or discrimination
>- The state of having good sense and sound judgment
>- A fact that logically justifies some premise or conclusion
>- Draw or come to a conclusion
>- Think logically
>
>It is my assumption that you would base an assertion of the ubiquity
>of reason on ideas such as the third and the fifth, those that stress
>logic as you have. Though not educated in formal logic, I hold what I
>consider to be logic, something like linear, evidentially supported
>chain of inference (is my ignorance showing?) in great regard. But I
>still cannot see that it is anything more than hubris to suggest that
>an omnipotent deity must be constrained by what you or I consider
>universal. An omnipotent deity, a universe creating entity, is
>extra-universal and thus not constrained by those laws, logic and all.
As I said, I cannot agree. Given your hypothesis, let us say that
proposition P is true, but *for God*, who is not constrained by logic,
it is not. But then, for God, looking at us, it is true. So for Him it
is both. Not just an unknown "either" it is actually both. Thus for us
down here there are two modal propositions which are simultaneously
true: "For God, P" and "For God, /P". The "for" clause can be
de-modalized, or so I would think, just as an assertion of God being
involved, thus "PG is true" and "PG is false". At this point you are
entitled to say "Well for G's sake make up your mind". There is no way
you can *logically* demand that God is not subject to logic. The
logic-free zone won't be contained within God, it leaks out. And once
you accept the validity of a single argument that defies logic, it
leads to contradiction: P and /P both being true at the same time,
which in turn can be used to prove absolutely anything - whether
related or not (left as an exercise for the reader, but it's
bog-standard stuff).
>An entity that exists within, or interacts with, our universe is
>summarily qualified as limited, if only because it needed to interact
>with natural processes to effect purposes, and is therefore not
>omnipotent.
Nah, it was only limited in that if that's what it wanted to do then
logically it could do it no other way. Being constrained by the logic
of a problem that it chose for itself doesn't break omnipotence.
>Put another way, I can see the concept of divine omnipotence as being
>compatible with spirituality (though not my own), but to me it seems
>contradictory with organized religion. From what I can tell, organized
>religion may be useful in structuring community, and it may help in
>contributing discipline through moral instruction, but it doesn't
>really seem to be good at connecting people with god (if in fact he's
>there to pick up).
Not sure what "organized religion" means here. My own religion is
pretty disorganized. Perhaps this is why I'm happy with omnipotence,
though to be honest I don't see the connection.
>Actually, Cirbryn said "many", not "most"...a big difference. And I
>share his/her view. I made the unfortunate mistake in my earlier post
>of stressing with the term "*only*" in regards to proof of god's
>existence. I didn't think that through. What I do think works best
>for some of us is the "some of each" strategy...the two pieces of
>information of (A) Here I am (God) and (B) Here's what I'm about.
>Either one by itself is not very useful.
>
>What we do have is (B) and not (A). For me, without (A), (B) is just
>a fantasy of mankind, nothing more. And there are many conflicting
>versions of these fantasies. At most, only one of them can be real,
>and since *all* of them have been expressed by humans, (A) becomes
>absolutely necessary in sorting this all out. Without (A), no story
>is any better then any other, and they are all suspect. Surely the
>real god(s), if any, can see that.
Well I always appreciate any effort to clarify what we are talking
about!
However, I too must draw your attention to goalposts receding into the
distance. A little while ago (A) was not God saying "Here I am", it
was physical signs indicating "There it is". I would suggest that the
difference is considerably more significant than the "many"/"most"
dichotomy. Signs that *do* imply an invitation or a greeting or which
indicate God's character would be totally appropriate and an effective
strategy. In Christian theology, miracles are valid "signs", indeed
the root of the word means something you see. Nearly all are of
healing - something which *does* indicate a loving God, not a
capricious sky-pixie doing magic to get our attention.
>> >and b) Strategies are
>> >for beings that are constrained by circumstances to reach their
>> >objectives in particular ways. Omnipotent beings shouldn't need
>> >strategies.
>>
>> Of course they should. The circumstances that constrain include prior
>> choices God has made about what to create. How He goes about drawing
>> people back to Him when a) they have free-will b) they have abused
>> free-will c) they are in rebellion against Him d) they are due for
>> judgement e) God loves and died for, is a "problem" surrounded by
>> "constraints".
>
>
>Apparently you think that one of these constraints is that god must
>remain hidden. So far I don't think you've answered the question of
>"Why not some of each?" (unless I missed it).
Mainly because I waiting to be told what the "each" meant! Now that I
have been able to infer it, I think (hope) I've answered it above. I
don't think God wants to remain "hidden", I just think that there are
good reasons why He doesn't leave purely physical signs of His
creative activity lying around. He has more important matters to
communicate than an unembellished proof that He exists. Even if this
rules out the sort of theology that starts with physical proof that
some (alt.) atheists seem to crave.
>As far as your list above:
>a) I'm not convinced I have free will. Free will would seem to
>include (among other things) the ability for me to have 100% control
>over my emotions 100% of the time. I haven't been able to achieve
>that. I'd like to know who has. I'd like that skill.
Well, this is a big NG - I'm posting "from" t.o., not, as I would
assume, a.a., and I don't know how many threads are x-posted. But in
other threads here I have explicitly stated that I don't think many of
our choices are free, just some and only then when God intervenes and
allows to to choose Him (or something He is directly concerned about)
in a given situation. Whether He has built this liberation from
psychological constraint into us or whether the intervention is on a
case by case basis I really don't know. That's my view of it, it
obviously differs greatly from the idea that every decision that feels
free *is* free.
>b) I don't understand "abused free will", unless you mean doing things
>that others don't like, and sure...I'm guilty of that.
Again, my answer is unashamedly within the context of Christian
theology. When we have a *moral* choice (as above) and free-will, we
have a *duty* to make the *right* decision. Not to do so is to abuse
our free will. Isn't that reasonable?
>c) I'm not in rebellion. There's nothing to rebel against, or so it
>seems.
That just begs the question. We were discussing why the "thing" to
rebel against hasn't left physical proof of "it's" existence. Just
saying it doesn't exist is hardly a step forward.
>d) You mean judgement beyond what family and society place on me
>regularly? If this is in regards to eternal life, then that's yet
>another thing I suspect is not real. Why should I think it is?
Same answer.
>e) I don't understand this either. Any and all gods are currently
>figments of my imagination, and I don't have the slightest clue how
>one can have a "relationship" with such imaginary beings.
Again this obviously pre-empts any discussion of why "the God of
Christianity", which is what we were discussing, should do things the
way He does. This argument ought to be drawn together - the observed
fact is that God has not left visible signs lying around; the query is
why, if He exists, should this be so; the meta-conclusion, if there is
no satisfactory answer, would be that one of the premises is wrong,
namely that he exists; if there is a reasonable answer then nothing
can be concluded either way. Your prior assumption that He doesn't
exist is an entirely different matter.
>The bottom line is that if the primary goal is to "draw people back",
>there seems to be a simple, foolproof formula for this, at least in my
>case. Yet that's not the formula that is used, for some reason that
>is still beyond my understanding.
Hopefully not any more ;)
[bow, bow] didn't know that god was dead didja ol 'lady [bow bow] you
mean free of values like respecting other peoples religions and not
telling dying muslims that jesus loves them [bow bow] you are a
hypocrit [/bow bow]
That is my personal belief. However, I will not claim that to be a
scientific belief. As I said before, there could be evidence for certain
types of entities (ie. the 2001-style alien you neglected to comment on).
>
>>> If your response to the first question was "yes," and if your
> response
>>> to the second question was "no," at which point do you draw the
> line--
>>> at which level of an intelligence's involvement does a process
> cease
>>> to be "evolution"?
>>
>> Why don't you answer your own question, David. I'm an atheist. I don't buy
>> into tinkering of any level. If you have emperical evidence of tinkering,
>> provide it.
>
> [AC]"Why don't you answer your own question" My follow-up question
> was predicated on a "yes" and then a "no" answer, respectively, to my
> previous two questions. Your response amounted to two "no"s (and I
> concur with those responses). The conditions for my follow-up
> question aren't met.
> Perhaps an individual that considers himself or herself a "theistic
> evolutionist" could step forward and explain their position without
> using the word "evolution" or any of its derivatives.
I think that would be best. I do not pretend to understand how theistic
evolutionists might explain tinkering.
>
> Now, to go back to something you stated previously, [AC]"I know at
> least three theistic evolutionists who do believe that God was
> involved in evolution, tinkering here and there," I maintain that the
> following proposition is incoherent:
> God (an intelligent entity) directed evolution (a
> non-intelligence-directed-at-any-level process).
It's incoherent to you because this seems to be something of a strawman.
Evolutionary theory, like any science, cannot eliminate the possibility of
some super-being capable of manipulating natural processes in some
non-obvious way.
>
>>> In your view, if an intelligent entity created the physical
> universe,
>>> and made the physical universe such that the universe would give
> rise
>>> to life, and made the universe such that that life would give rise
> to
>>> the biological world of which we are aware, would the biological
> world
>>> be the product of "evolution"?
>>
>> Does it make a difference at the end of the day? If the processes can be
>> explained through science, then so be it. Evolution means change.
>
> [AC]"Does it make a difference at the end of the day?" No, but it
> might make a difference at the beginning of the next day.
> I do not know whether the idea that an intelligent entity created the
> universe in the manner speculated above is compatible with the atheist
> stance.
I cannot speak for other atheists, but if you could provide actual evidence,
as opposed to self-referential posts and the odd quotation either intended
as an attack on empericism or misread as such, that some being was
responsible for the universe, then I would gladly listen.
> [AC]"If the processes can be explained through science" Please
> rephrase, without using the word "science."
No, I won't. For me, that's where the buck stops. I don't buy into
metaphysics, spirituality, religion, etc. If the process can be
demonstrated to actually happen, then science can touch it. But if it's
just "I don't think natural selection happens, and here's two hundred URLs
linking to previous posts by me which have citations from various books that
I think agree with my argument from incredulity" then no, David, I have no
reason to accept it.
>
>>>> However, they know
>>>> perfectly well that the scientific method cannot investigate this
> sort of
>>>> divine tinkering and feel that evolutionary theory best explains
> the
>>>> evidence, and do not feel that it violates any fundemental
> spiritual
>>>> precepts they may hold.
>>>
>>> In your view, does "evolutionary theory" make provision for/ allow/
>>> permit an intelligent entity tinkering here and there with a
> process
>>> resulting in new organisms?
>>
>> The current theory does not, because there is no evidence for such
>> tinkering.
>
> In light of this clarification, I'll rephrase a comment of yours:
> The aforementioned 3 individuals feel that evolution theory (which
> doesn't envision any involvement whatsoever by intelligence) best
> explains the evidence.
> In response, I suspect that the 3 individuals would disagree with this
> statement. Of course, the question of whether they agree with the
> statement is best answered by them.
As I said, I won't speak for others. I once got an explanation that any
tinkering by God was of a subtle kind. I don't buy that explanation, but
since it does not require rejecting whole branches of science, I leave it
alone (unless I'm having a metaphysical debate).
>
>>> In your view, does "evolutionary theory" allow for an intelligent
>>> entity massively manipulating a process resulting in new organisms?
>>> In your view, does "evolutionary theory" allow for an intelligent
>>> entity setting up a system such that that system gives rise to the
>>> biological world of which we are aware?
>>
>> David, you know the answer perfectly well. Why are you asking the same
>> question over and over?
>
> The questions weren't the same, but instead differed:
> one was about tinkering,
> the second was about massive manipulation, and
> the last one was about manipulation of an initial setup.
> You correctly supplied 3 "no"s in response to the questions.
> Perhaps a "theistic evolutionist" would have answered
> differently/incorrectly.
The anthropomorphic principle is becoming more popular, and I agree with
others that once ID is shot down, this will be the last stand of organized
anti-evolutionary movements. If there is a being that used, as someone put
it, the butterfly effect, when first creating the universe, which made life
inevitable, then again, science would still explain things the same way.
>
>>>> Science cannot eliminate the possibility that someone/something
> tinkered
>>>> with evolution.
>>>
>>> Can science eliminate the possibility that a process was set up by
> an
>>> intelligent entity such that the process would give rise to all of
>>> biology?
>>> Can science eliminate the possibility that an intelligent entity
>>> massively manipulated a process resulting in new organisms?
>>
>> It really depends on the entity. If we're talking about an omnipotent
>> being, then no, science cannot.
>
> How about a semi-potent being?
> (For reference, the Judeo-Christian God is said to be "omnipotent," or
> "capable of doing anything that can logically be done and that is
> consistent with His other attributes." This God can't make a square
> triangle, because "square triangle" is not logically consistent and is
> gibberish.)
I wasn't aware that that was a definition of "omnipotent".
And what do you mean by semi-potent? Do you mean 2001 aliens, who have left
their bodies and exist as some sort of electro-magnetic entity? If this is
the sort of designer you're talking about, then (potentially) evidence could
be found for them, and for their tinkering.
>
>> You do know how science functions and why
>> it functions the way it does, don't you?
>
> Nope. You will, I trust, recall that I am a creationist.
I'm sure you know very well how science functions, and why it functions the
way it does, and why certain types of questions are beyond the scope of
science.
JoJean,
You have not answered my question about the Bible's position on homosexuality:
> > The Bible speaks against homosexuality in 1 Cor. Chap 6, v 9, and Lev
> > Chap 18, v 22. God bless, Jo Jean
> >
> Let's look at these, shall we?
>
> 1 Cor. Chap 6, v 9 (and 10)
>
> Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
> Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
> nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
> Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
> extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
>
> I'm a little confused here about the reference to homosexuality. Does
> this mean that gay men are OK if they're butch rather than effeminate?
> And what does "abusers of themselves with mankind" mean? Is this a
> reference to solitary or group masturbation? And if it's an obscure
> reference to gay sex, then presumably lesbians are OK (provided
> they're butch too, and not lipstick lesbians) since they're abusing
> themselves with womankind?
>
>
> Lev Chap 18, v 22
> Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
>
> This could be seen as a condemnation of male gay sex, but it could
> also apply to threesomes. Comments?
>
> And what do you make of:
>
> Leviticus 11 vv10-12:
> "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers,
> of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in
> the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
> They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their
> flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
> Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an
> abomination unto you."
>
> Have you ever eaten at Red Lobster, JoJean? Ever gone to a clambake?
> Why is gay sex an abomination, but eating crawfish OK?
Andy
See this is one of those "same planet different worlds" situations
that I like about TO. I don't consider credible evidence of God's
existence to be sufficient for most people to give Him their loyalty
and trust, but I do consider it a necessary first step. I frankly have
trouble understanding a mindset that wouldn't find that important.
> >and b) Strategies are
> >for beings that are constrained by circumstances to reach their
> >objectives in particular ways. Omnipotent beings shouldn't need
> >strategies.
>
> Of course they should. The circumstances that constrain include prior
> choices God has made about what to create. How He goes about drawing
> people back to Him when a) they have free-will b) they have abused
> free-will c) they are in rebellion against Him d) they are due for
> judgement e) God loves and died for, is a "problem" surrounded by
> "constraints".
Hmm. Maybe we're using different definitions of "omnipotent." Could
you pick just one of those "constraints" and explain why God couldn't
overcome it?
<snippage>
Then you shouldn't mind learning some new topics of which you are
currently misinformed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA008.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA009.html
Oh, heck, there are so many links, that this can take all day. Just
take your pick from the index:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CA
(snip)
This is as opposed to the: Value Expensive America as practiced by the
Puritans in the Salem Witch hunts? With values like that, I'm glad we
evolved into a society governed by secular laws.
> I am an 82 year old Christian
Nut
> lady. I am interested in a wide variety of
> topics
Except the truth
> and am a retired RN.
Who should actully know something about evolution and science.
Nope. Balloon animals.
If you're willing to allow some wiggle room in the meaning of
omnipotent then I suppose that can work for both of us. As I can
accept that different people may not always use a word to mean exactly
the same thing I'll conclude that when you say omnipotent you do not
mean what I do, that being limitlessness. If this is the case then I
do not need to belabor the point.
I agree with you about worlds without logic, although I might phrase
it more like "I cannot conceive of such a universe." I've learned
enough physics to know that what I can or cannot conceive in no way
constrains what the universe might serve up. I can agree as well with
your point about whatever we say regarding worlds without logic being
simultaneously true, false, and meaningless. This applies very nicely
to descriptions of an omnipotent god as far as I'm concerned (using my
definition of the word).
You sure about that? I know this kind of reasoning is very meaningful
to believers but at the risk of sounding provocative this point of
view is hopelessly dependent upon the perspective of an a priori
commitment to the object of your belief. I'm quite willing to be
satisfied with the meager rewards of introspective spirituality if
doing so precludes a descent into annular logic.
> >Don't you see how, well, value-laden a term like *values* is? To me it
> >seems a bit provincial to assume that any values, even those we hold
> >sacrosanct, must indeed be universal, not to mention infinite and
> >divine. Likewise I think one can say the same for logic, although in
> >that case I might need to fall back on that opprobrious refuge, the
> >multiverse.
>
> Can't agree. Multiuniverse theories are by definition subject to
> logic, thus anything you say about the other universes must be
> logical. So as long as what you're saying is *true*, the universes
> themselves must be logical.
You appear to be using logic as a synonym for math. As far as this
goes I agree. However, I think a little bit of logic = intuition (i.e.
some things are just obvious) keeps sneaking into your usage and that
is confusing this issue. My bad if I have misinterpreted.
> I agree the term "values" ia value-laden. I use it in the
> "traditional" sense implying that there is an absolute morality to
> which true values conform and to which human values hopefully aspire.
> Sorry if you don't believe in such things.
I do not. I think human history is laden with unfortunate examples of
what can happen when otherwise good people convince themselves of the
*absoluteness* of what, at the time, seems moral and true.
> >Maybe I'm too philosophically spineless to accept the idea of
> >universal constants outside of physics (and there again we've got that
> >whole multiverse thing) but this entire line of reasoning strikes me
> >as nothing more than human hubris.
> >
> >(As to convincing you, I'm not even sure I've convinced myself yet,
> >but I started this thing and I'm gonna see it through)
>
> Are you sure you don't believe in eternal torment? :)
Oh my yes I do. One needs only to know a Cubs fan.
I initially attempted to respond to this paragraph by picking it apart
but gave it up due to, what seems to me, the confluence of factors
like semantic inefficiencies and multiple meanings mixing with the
content. Another possibility is that I just don't have the cortex to
ken it.
In any case I decided to try to get at this in a different way. How
would you answer these questions,
Is god the creator of the universe?
If so, didn't god, then, exist before the universe existed?
If so, did god exist before math, logic, physical laws and absolute
morality existed?
The way I see it you can answer this in one of two ways. Yes, god
existed previous to math, logic, etc. I think this answer serves my
position.
If you say no, then I must assume you are asserting that those
constructs were embodied within the divine entity, that they are, in
fact, aspects of god himself. As such, then, isn't this pretty much
tantamount to a kind of deism that leaves us once more with
observations that, from your perspective, are simultaneously true,
false, and meaningless.
> >An entity that exists within, or interacts with, our universe is
> >summarily qualified as limited, if only because it needed to interact
> >with natural processes to effect purposes, and is therefore not
> >omnipotent.
>
> Nah, it was only limited in that if that's what it wanted to do then
> logically it could do it no other way. Being constrained by the logic
> of a problem that it chose for itself doesn't break omnipotence.
Neither does it make any sense. The fact that the imperfection of
language can allow such paradoxical statements doesn't mean they carry
insight.
> >Put another way, I can see the concept of divine omnipotence as being
> >compatible with spirituality (though not my own), but to me it seems
> >contradictory with organized religion. From what I can tell, organized
> >religion may be useful in structuring community, and it may help in
> >contributing discipline through moral instruction, but it doesn't
> >really seem to be good at connecting people with god (if in fact he's
> >there to pick up).
>
> Not sure what "organized religion" means here. My own religion is
> pretty disorganized. Perhaps this is why I'm happy with omnipotence,
> though to be honest I don't see the connection.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that organized religion is concerned
with attempting to provide the competitive advantage of one
description of god over another. It seems to me the more one describes
god, the color of his beard, the kind of sandals he wears, the more
one grounds that deity in this natural reality and the farther one
gets from omnipotence. Now I happen to believe that the concept of an
omnipotent deity is senseless fantasy based upon desires for comfort
from any possible ill, so I don't see a retreat from omnipotence as a
bad thing.
I do see is as an inherent contradiction, though. On the one hand, an
omnipotent god, capable of creating the universe. On the other, a
somewhat less than perfect god with whom one can have a "personal
relationship." I do not see how the twain can meet without a whole lot
of fudging and wishful thinking. Until this apparent inconsistency can
be resolved, it will continue to strike me as oxymoronic to suggest
what the creator thought processes were while speaking the universe,
or marsupial wolves, into existence.
robert
It's not physics you need but philosophy, I suspect Kant had a bit to
say on it, though I'm not an expert. Physics obviously includes things
like non-locality which you cannot imagine. But you can supplement
your imagination with maths and rules that say how a system behaves
and thus conceive of everything that real physics has come up with.
Speculation about worlds where the laws of physics are different are,
well, speculation, but there is no serious speculation about worlds in
which the laws of logic are different
I take your point. Let's just say I believe I'm absolutely certain.
>> >Don't you see how, well, value-laden a term like *values* is? To me it
>> >seems a bit provincial to assume that any values, even those we hold
>> >sacrosanct, must indeed be universal, not to mention infinite and
>> >divine. Likewise I think one can say the same for logic, although in
>> >that case I might need to fall back on that opprobrious refuge, the
>> >multiverse.
>>
>> Can't agree. Multiuniverse theories are by definition subject to
>> logic, thus anything you say about the other universes must be
>> logical. So as long as what you're saying is *true*, the universes
>> themselves must be logical.
>
>You appear to be using logic as a synonym for math. As far as this
>goes I agree. However, I think a little bit of logic = intuition (i.e.
>some things are just obvious) keeps sneaking into your usage and that
>is confusing this issue. My bad if I have misinterpreted.
Dunno. Does it? I'm not aware of any.
>> I agree the term "values" ia value-laden. I use it in the
>> "traditional" sense implying that there is an absolute morality to
>> which true values conform and to which human values hopefully aspire.
>> Sorry if you don't believe in such things.
>
>I do not. I think human history is laden with unfortunate examples of
>what can happen when otherwise good people convince themselves of the
>*absoluteness* of what, at the time, seems moral and true.
Let's transfer it to arithmetic. A lot of people make arithmetic
mistakes. Some people see all the confusion and conclude there is no
right answer in arithmetic. Others say there must be, it's just that
people are no good at sums. Who is right? Do you go by the evidence:
everybody disagreeing, disasters following after arithmetic mistakes
or do you make a judgement based on your own private intuition that
sums have answers.
Well, I was just trying to see why your obviously illogical stance
went wrong.
>In any case I decided to try to get at this in a different way. How
>would you answer these questions,
>Is god the creator of the universe?
>If so, didn't god, then, exist before the universe existed?
>If so, did god exist before math, logic, physical laws and absolute
>morality existed?
>
>The way I see it you can answer this in one of two ways. Yes, god
>existed previous to math, logic, etc. I think this answer serves my
>position.
>
>If you say no, then I must assume you are asserting that those
>constructs were embodied within the divine entity, that they are, in
>fact, aspects of god himself.
That is a very fair analysis so far...
>As such, then, isn't this pretty much
>tantamount to a kind of deism that leaves us once more with
>observations that, from your perspective, are simultaneously true,
>false, and meaningless.
... which suddenly descends into a non-sequitur.
>> >An entity that exists within, or interacts with, our universe is
>> >summarily qualified as limited, if only because it needed to interact
>> >with natural processes to effect purposes, and is therefore not
>> >omnipotent.
>>
>> Nah, it was only limited in that if that's what it wanted to do then
>> logically it could do it no other way. Being constrained by the logic
>> of a problem that it chose for itself doesn't break omnipotence.
>
>Neither does it make any sense. The fact that the imperfection of
>language can allow such paradoxical statements doesn't mean they carry
>insight.
I don't think it's anything to do with the words. Why shouldn't
omnipotence choose to act in a way which then precludes doing
something else?
Well, I cannot resolve an inconsistency that doesn't exist. I can only
hope to answer you clearly when you explain where you think the
inconsistency actually lies. I would, of course, agree that
anthropomorphism undermines the reality of God, but the Christian
concept is of a God whose nature *is* revealed to us. So the fact we
use human terms to describe the things that He does have in common
with us shouldn't cause any confusion. I does occur to me that maybe
His having qualities at all may seem to undermine omnipotence but in
that case "omnipotent" is not what Christians generally mean by it,
but some sort of construct derived from set theory: omnipotence is the
quality of having all qualities. I don't think that makes sense. So if
God has some qualities but not ithers, why should our knowing about
them undermine His omnipotence? I can't see any connection whatsoever.
I am an 82 year old Christian lady. I am interested in a wide variety of
topics and am a retired RN.
http://community.webtv.net/JOJOYD/BigDiscusser
What is this "credible" that has suddenly slipped into the discussion?
We were talking about purely physical evidence of creation. That isn't
by any means the only possible evidence, the usual Christian angle, to
which I subscribe, is that accepting and acknowledging subjective
evidence of His "higher" attributes - whether attributed to Him or
impersonally, is the first and necessary step. In less abstract terms,
conviction of sin, awareness of God's love, even acknowledging the
intrinsic values of nature are first steps that God can use.
The different worlds idea is quite right, people have specific
problems within themselves, they lie and cheat, even towards
themselves, God has a specific agenda to rescue them, they can still
respond to God's love and forgiveness - this is my world. People just
need evidence in a systematic order, they are quite capable of
responding appropriately if given information in a neutral way - this
is your world.
But in the context of the thread, "your world" is irrelevant as I was
answering Mark's question which assumed the God of the Christians. I
would not undertake rationalizing a chimeric God, part Christian and
part some impartial maker thing concocted by atheists... with all due
respect to the latter.
>> >and b) Strategies are
>> >for beings that are constrained by circumstances to reach their
>> >objectives in particular ways. Omnipotent beings shouldn't need
>> >strategies.
>>
>> Of course they should. The circumstances that constrain include prior
>> choices God has made about what to create. How He goes about drawing
>> people back to Him when a) they have free-will b) they have abused
>> free-will c) they are in rebellion against Him d) they are due for
>> judgement e) God loves and died for, is a "problem" surrounded by
>> "constraints".
>
>Hmm. Maybe we're using different definitions of "omnipotent." Could
>you pick just one of those "constraints" and explain why God couldn't
>overcome it?
How about God created us with free-will and does not wish to turn us
into robots? Thus He cannot force us to respond to Him. He has the
ability to force us but there's no logical way He can do it consistent
with the other premises.
The best exposition of my arguments regarding attributes of the
creator(s) of physics appears in
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005292327160.25513-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
I've not put much thought into whether using reason and the worlds of
physics and biology a strong argument can be made that the creator(s)
of physics was also the creator(s) of biology. I've not thought much
about what exactly "omnipotence" means.
At this point, I'm unaware of any strong arguments for, on the basis
of reasoning and physics and physics's beginning to exist, a
derivation of the attribute of "omnipotent," or for that matter, the
attribute of "personal."
Note also that I believe many things without presently having strong
arguments for believing those things.
> > > This position brings into sharp relief
> > > how wildly disanalogous are the human's and designer's respective
> > > "intelligences." If the god of Christianity exists then surely it is
> > > of such a constitution that we cannot even imagine its totality, much
> > > less think as it does.
> >
> > Does the [R]"god of Christianity" think that 2 + 2 equals 4?
> > Does the [R]"god of Christianity" think that a rock dropped from a
> > second-story window will fall?
>
> You tell me. Do you really believe an omnipotent god, a god who exists
> outside of, in fact created, the laws of the universe can be
> constrained by these concerns? Does he/she/it really think as you or I
> would?
I'd say "yes" in response to both my questions. To illustrate, Jesus
is said to have counted how many blind men he healed, and if the men
that were lowering their handicapped friend through a roof happened to
prematurely let go of their friend, I am sure that Jesus would have
known that the friend would have gone crashing to the ground.
If an entity creates the physical world/ the world of physics, and
then creates organisms that exist within that physical world, I would
think that certain characteristics of the physical world would greatly
affect the range of possible organisms that could be created within
that physical world.
Of course, it is conceivable that a super-intelligent entity has the
ability to create several different types of physical systems, and
that different biological possibilities can be implemented within the
different physics constraints of those different physical systems.
If a super-intelligent creator made physics, biology, and intelligent
humans, it is entirely possible that the creator and the intelligent
creatures think some of the same thoughts, e.g. 2 + 2 equals 4, and
rocks dropped from second-story windows fall to the ground.
Moreover, it is conceivable that the creatures were created with an
inborn desire for knowledge: knowledge about the surrounding physical
and biological worlds, and knowledge of at least some of the thoughts
and thinking of the creator, with there being some overlap between the
two realms of knowledge. In such a scenario, when making discoveries
in physics or biology a scientist learns at least an inkling of the
thoughts of the mind of the creator.
Humans can also have their high points: do the right thing, forgive
when it seems impossible to forgive, not to mention demonstrate
courage.
> Humans even
> make up origin stories to ease their metaphysical discomfort (not
> yours of course).
Some materialists have been known to adhere to made-up origin stories
to ease their metaphysical discomfort.
> So when you argue that my inexperience with ex nihilo creation leaves
> my opinion on that act no better informed than yours I wholeheartedly
> agree. That is the point. It staggers me that so many creationists are
> willing to impute actions or purposes to their god as if they are
> speaking by proxy.
Pick some imputations of mine I've made, and we can discuss them.
> (I guess the whole "personal relationship with god"
> thing might be the origin of this. Are we supposed to think that a
> perfect, omnipotent god spends his time slugging Dr. Pepper and
> swapping recipes with all of those who appear to claim to speak for
> him?)
>
> > > Are you really satisfied with this kind of argument?
> >
> > I try to steer clear of inconsistency. If my arguments and claims are
> > seen by me to be inconsistent, then I'm not satisfied. Something must
> > go, or be altered, or be added, to correct the situation.
>
> I value consistency highly as well. But it is also important to value
> reason. You do realize it is possible for your chain of logic to be
> entirely consistent while also being wrong?
Sure. If you see a point in my argumentation that you think is wrong,
say so and we can discuss it.
> > > Is this really
> > > the god you worship? He may be a helluva nice guy but the first thing
> > > I'd do is ask him if he's got two tens for a five.
> > >
> > > Let me give you a bit of free advice. ID guys should never, ever, ever
> > > offer anything that in any way reveals qualities, purposes, calibers,
> > > or functions of their designer.
> >
> > Whatever designer(s) was/were responsible for the universe, which
> > began to exist in the creation-out-of-nothing event that was the Big
> > Bang, it/they was/were extremely intelligent. Feynman's knowledge of
> > physics was puny compared with the knowledge of physics that was
> > possessed by the creator(s) of physics.
>
> Of course, this continues to make my point. And even Feynman would
> probably have been loathe to impute specific thoughts or actions to
> it/they. (By the way the above comes dangerously close to satisfying
> your demand that I produce an example of you arguing overarching
> omnipotence. Sadly, though, not close enough for an "Aha, gotcha!")
Perhaps you will locate something about which you can say "gotcha!" in
my big bang essay, the URL appearing early on in the present reply.
I agree with you about Feynman-- he was, after all, an atheist.
Living Physics: A Biography of Richard Feynman
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10003220756520.4269-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
> > > To do so is to immediately blunder
> > > into the wet cement of contradiction. Either you hopelessly dilute the
> > > inscrutable majesty of god by equating his intelligence with that of
> > > humdrum humans, or you invalidate ID's only argument from analogy.
> > > Always remember, the one (and only) strength of ID is its complete
> > > lack of content. Say nothing specific, avoid testable claims, and
> > > repeat this mantra, "I never said anything about god. Who's talking
> > > about religion, not me!"
> >
> > [R]"avoid testable claims" In your view, has intelligent design
> > theory been falsified?
> > Have any ID claims been falsified?
>
> Have you stopped beating your wife?
I never started beating anyone.
[R]"avoid testable claims" In your view, has intelligent design
theory been falsified?
Have any ID claims been falsified?
> > > <snip rest of df's post from which I drew the above quotes>
Oh, dear.
Has it become so bad for you, Jo Jean, that you must emulate Ed Conrad?
< snip >
Couple of things...
1) Ever noticed how the world has more countries than just America
(you have the second biggest country in the world just north of you).
2) Ever noticed how countries that are less religious, or more varied
religion, have lower crime rates, higher standards of education etc?
Somehow I think both of these thing may have eluded you.
Thank god for education.
Stew Dean
>>Hmm. Maybe we're using different definitions of "omnipotent." Could
>>you pick just one of those "constraints" and explain why God couldn't
>>overcome it?
>
>How about God created us with free-will and does not wish to turn us
>into robots? Thus He cannot force us to respond to Him. He has the
>ability to force us but there's no logical way He can do it consistent
>with the other premises.
>
What is the rationalizing of forcing others to submit to the "will
of god" ? If god doesn`t force people to worship him, why would he
approve of worshippers forcing other to live according to their
beliefs?
> > courtesy godless evolutionism.
<snip>
Ok then, let me very very briefly explore some values. If you don't
mind I'll use the ten commandments and assume that they are the main
values of belief in god based christianity. I know this is an
oversimplification, but play along ok!
I will intersperse my own "values" for the sake of comparison. Here we
go:
>Exodus 20
> vs 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
I agree with this one since I am an atheist and have no god at all.
Technically I'm keeping to this commandment by not having any other
gods before the bible's one. Score one for me!
> 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any >thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in >the water under the earth.
> 5 Thou shalt not adore them, bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: >for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers >upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
> 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my >commandments.
I agree that worshiping is a bad idea whether it's applied to graven
images or not so I guess this one counts too. I have taken photographs
of various scenary (my bad) But since I don't believe in any gods at
all, and don't worship the photos, this one is easy. Score two for me!
> 7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD >will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
I think taking the name of your god in vain is a bad idea to, but I
reckon that on a technicality (i.e. that the lord is actually not my
god because I don't have one) I can count this. Score three for me!
> 8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
> 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
> 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou >shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, >nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
> 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that >in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath >day, and hallowed it.
Ok, I see no problem with working as much or as little as you like, in
life you just have to accept the consequences of your actions. For
example, my career is in research science. It's a 7 day a week job. I
do try and have at least one day a week off to spend with my wife, but
sometimes I don't manage it. My bad. No score for me.
> 12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the >land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
I think all people should be less shitty to each other. If your mum
and dad have treated you well, you should treat them well. I don't
think you have to listen to everything they say, and I certainly think
that you should never accept anything uncritically, but as long as you
honour them, you keep this commandment. I love my mum and dad a very
great deal and get on with them very well. Score four for me!
> 13 Thou shalt not kill.
I agree. Bingo, easy marks. Score five for me!
> 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
I agree. Raking 'em in! Score six for me!
> 15 Thou shalt not steal.
I agree. Marvellous, these are a cinch! Score seven for me!
> 16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
I agree (although Jason Gastrich, a "christian", has some trouble with
this one I note). Absolutely simple! Score eight for me!
> 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy >neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his >ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
I agree. I do want a Ferrari......but, I don't envy someone who has
one, I admire them for getting it together to get one. Score nine for
me!
So on the ten commandments I get a 9 out of 10! Wow! I only miss on
the 7 day week. Pretty sweet. So if I decree that it's a good idea
that people slack off work a bit more and lounge around the house, I
get a perfect 10. Nice. <booming voice> Go forth and slack off people!
You have my blessing. </booming voice>
Well golly gosh darn Jo Jean, seems like this evil atheist shares
quite a large number of those Christian values. Amazing, since I
basically came up with them by myself after having a bit of an ethical
think one day and reading some philosophy books ;-). Oh and of course
I accept that evolutionay biology is the best and most accurate
explanation of a wide number of observations about the natural world.
Seems like your contention that us godless, atheist, evil,
evolutionary biology acceptors are all streaming around without any
values, or even with values vastly different to those of certain
aspects of christianity, is wrong. Now who would have thought that?
Louis
[snip]
> > But I would say this -
> > Christianity, the teaching that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and
> > came to save sinners - is extraordinarily banal *IF* it gets itself
> > tangled up with the twin curses of Christianity: obsession with
> > legalism and hell-fire preaching. Mere literalism and creationism are
> > just icing on the cake. If, however, it leads to an understanding of
> > the *character* of God it is utterly sublime and knocks spots off
> > anything an introspecttive spirituality offers.
I reject the view that there are immortal souls that can suffer
endlessly/ without end in hell.
Bacchiocchi chapter "Hell: Eternal Torment Or Annihilation?"
http://www2.andrews.edu/~samuele/books/immortality_resurrection/6.htm
[snip]
> I guess what I'm trying to say is that organized religion is concerned
> with attempting to provide the competitive advantage of one
> description of god over another. It seems to me the more one describes
> god, the color of his beard, the kind of sandals he wears, the more
> one grounds that deity in this natural reality and the farther one
> gets from omnipotence. Now I happen to believe that the concept of an
> omnipotent deity is senseless fantasy based upon desires for comfort
> from any possible ill, so I don't see a retreat from omnipotence as a
> bad thing.
Do you think that the source of the concept is [R]"desires for comfort
from any possible ill"?
If "yes," do you think that because the concept has that as a source,
the concept is a [R]"senseless fantasy"?
You tell me.
[..]
>Well golly gosh darn Jo Jean, seems like this evil atheist shares
>quite a large number of those Christian values. Amazing, since I
>basically came up with them by myself after having a bit of an ethical
>think one day and reading some philosophy books ;-). Oh and of course
>I accept that evolutionay biology is the best and most accurate
>explanation of a wide number of observations about the natural world.
>Seems like your contention that us godless, atheist, evil,
>evolutionary biology acceptors are all streaming around without any
>values, or even with values vastly different to those of certain
>aspects of christianity, is wrong. Now who would have thought that?
Heh, this evil *theist* isn't surprised at all.