Theistic Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

quote:

---

And hang on second, you and Contra already presupposed that you could tell me what atheists do or don't believe so get off you're high horse.

---

Actually, I corrected Rubystars, and you presumed to correct me.You may, if you wish, assert that you BELIEVE there are no invisible monkeys tap-dancing on your monitor.I, however, prefer to not even consider the proposition that there might be invisible tap-dancing monkeys, because I have no means to determine whether it is true or false.If you are confonted by a theist who claims that your belief is indistinguishable from theirs, you will have to admit this is so, because you cannot provide a rational explanation for your belief.If I am confronted by such a theist, however, I can offer a rational response, and decline to even consider the proposition until they can indicate a reason to do so.

No, I registered my disagreement. And I continue to hold that disagreement. If you think the question of whether there is a god can be answered either way you are not an Atheist. Well that's a bold claim. I strongly believe that Atheism is the rational conclusion on the basis of the evidence delivered by the world. Dodging the question makes your position no more rational.

[qupote] If you think the question of whether there is a god can be answered either way you are not an Atheist.[/quote]I agree with that; that would constitute agnosticism. Btu that was not my pointL the basis for that position is that there is no reason even to consider god in the first place other than some peoples claims.

quote:

---

Dodging the question makes your position no more rational.

---

Actually, I haven't dodged the quesrtion at all; I have increased the pressyure on the theist by asking for the prima facie case. I've never met a theist who can give a reason for considering god that did not first assume the existance of god.My opinion on god is exactly the same as my opinion of Martian Cactus. None.

this is off topic and easily settled with the dictionary definitions.Atheist Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com (especially see denial)
Agnostic Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com (especially see 1b)how about stopping this semantic bicker and get back to the topic? thanks.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

As a deist I have a couple of quibbles: I find that ID seems to make some basic assumptions with regard to the relative importance of earth, biological life, and especially people that are not derived from the basic precepts as presented, and that this severely weakens their arguments as well as unrealistically restricts the areas of investigation (ie - there is no need for evolution to be excluded by ID if properly pursued). You will find more thoughts along these lines at my is ID properly pursued? forum.I thought your POM post was also inciteful, and shows growth with increased knowledge and desire for education.and BTW, welcome to the fray, here.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Members may wish to (re)read the entire topic (it's not that long) before adding new messages.There is also the Theistic Evolution topic.Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

I haven't read the whole thread but I have a few questions of the opening post.Isn't the use of the term "supernatural" in the OP and elsewhere the use of an unscientific term and thus to argue against it is inherently an invalid argument?What is the definition of "supernatural"?The OP posits that IDers claim God or aliens intefered via supernatural means, but if there was an intervention in the physical world, would it not by definition be part of the physical world?If you are to reject something, you must examine it first with the possibility it could be true. So assuming it is true for purpose of considering the concept, that God or aliens intervened somehow, then by definition the mechanism for intervention would be real, and if real, part of reality, whether you call it physical or otherwise.To make the argument that if an agent did design, it had to be supernatural and so it did not happen is a totally internally inconsistent argument, at odds with itself, and just wrong. It's a fallacy to posit something like that.No, from a science perspective, one must assume that anything called "supernatural" is in fact by definition "natural" or a better term "part of reality" since natural can connote different things. For example, are the principles of quantum entanglement "natural"?Well, I suppose so but the term natural can be misleading.Back to the point though, if someone argues that something cannot be because it is supernatural, they are making a specious argument devoid of scientic rationale. If it is, the label of what it is does not matter, it is part of reality whether you want to call reality nature, physical, or the X factor. The label does not mean anything. The meaning of the process does.This message has been edited by randman, 06-01-2005 02:47 AM