Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8781 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2017 6:27 PM
362 online now:
frako, herebedragons, JonF, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), RAZD (5 members, 357 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,497 Year: 21,103/21,208 Month: 1,536/2,326 Week: 872/345 Day: 110/124 Hour: 1/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Author Topic:   Is my rock designed?
Admin
Director
Posts: 12523
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 212 of 219 (642807)
12-01-2011 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Robert Byers
12-01-2011 7:32 PM


Moderator Request
Hi Robert,

Please stop posting to this thread. Thanks.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Robert Byers, posted 12-01-2011 7:32 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Robert Byers, posted 12-02-2011 8:59 PM Admin has responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1210 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 213 of 219 (642810)
12-01-2011 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Robert Byers
12-01-2011 7:32 PM


Re: Is the question too difficult?
RB writes:

So processes only exist because of a creator.


Your whole argument rests on this single statement.
ID Theory is the claim that processes only exist because of a creator.
It is just a baseless assertion with no evidence to support it, and therefore should not be considered to be even slightly scientific.

Well, thanks for the answer.
There is no reason to think that processes only exist because of a creator - but at least we now know what ID 'Theory' is.

p.s.
And to make things worse: it is a circular argument.

If we were to continue along the line of questioning started with "Is my stone designed"...
Panda: "Are planets designed?"
RB: "Yes. Planets are designed by a creator."
Panda: "How do you know?"
RB: "All processes are designed by a creator."
Panda: "Is rain designed?"
RB: "Yes. Rain is designed by a creator."
Panda: "How do you know?"
RB: "All processes are designed by a creator."

The conclusion that stones, planets and rain (and all other processes) are designed by a creator is based upon the premise that all processes are designed by a creator.


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Robert Byers, posted 12-01-2011 7:32 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Moon-Ra, posted 12-01-2011 10:20 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
Moon-Ra
Junior Member (Idle past 1961 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 12-01-2011


Message 214 of 219 (642816)
12-01-2011 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Panda
12-01-2011 9:23 PM


Re: Is the question too difficult?
This entire line of reasoning crumbles under the following exchange:

ID: "All processes are designed by a creator."
Skeptical: "who created the creator?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Panda, posted 12-01-2011 9:23 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Larni, posted 12-02-2011 3:23 AM Moon-Ra has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3943
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 215 of 219 (642831)
12-02-2011 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Moon-Ra
12-01-2011 10:20 PM


Re: Is the question too difficult?
Don't forget that this does not apply to Yahweh. He created himself. And no, it's not special pleading because Yahweh can by definition do anything.

Hope that sorts things out for you.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Moon-Ra, posted 12-01-2011 10:20 PM Moon-Ra has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 1865 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 216 of 219 (642945)
12-02-2011 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Admin
12-01-2011 8:48 PM


Re: Moderator Request
Why?
you gave no reason?
Yet I can still post and not banned like everywhere else.
my answers are good and reasonable and not breaking any rules.
This is a conversation to persuade each other.
Nothing wrong WHATSOEVER with my answers here.
I know that.
I address in good faith and humour and will everyone here.
The whole thread is show the wrong thinking of creationists.
If we are wrong then we must see our error.
Banning us for the error , we do not see, is very oddly wrong.
One should seek a audience and not censor away one side.
can i get a vote on this?!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Admin, posted 12-01-2011 8:48 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Admin, posted 12-02-2011 10:24 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12523
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 217 of 219 (642952)
12-02-2011 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Robert Byers
12-02-2011 8:59 PM


Re: Moderator Request
Hi Robert,

I've explained the problems many times, there would be little point in repeating the exercise. You can stop posting to this thread, or I can remove your posting privileges in this forum.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Robert Byers, posted 12-02-2011 8:59 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
lbm111
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 219 of 219 (701887)
06-27-2013 12:35 PM


just read this short ebook discussion of free-will and intelligence. its quite short and loosely based on David Hume's similarly titled piece.

Worth the read especially since its free at the moment.

http://spam.amzn.to/11RW0mQ

Edited by Admin, : Disable spam link.


    
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017