Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   flying spaghetti monster flap in kansas
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 61 of 148 (309392)
05-05-2006 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by EZscience
05-05-2006 12:18 PM


Re: Accidents
EZScience writes:
Most of us working in biology would not agree with this. When you say 'given the design involved' you are making a huge leap of inference that is not supported by any evidence. It is merely an impression precipitated by your incredulity of the complexity you are observing.
Absolutely correct. I would add though, that there is no evidence that supports the notion that there is no intelligence behind our existance. It is only opinion as well. Everything about the universe, the world, human and non-human life is incredibly complex and in my view anything that complex very strongly indicates a designer.
EZScience writes:
Where is the evidence of the designer, or even evidence of any 'guidance' in the process of evolution? There is none. Postulating guidance is a dangerous first step on a path toward a teleological interpretation of life. It's just simply not needed - an unnecessary adddition that doesn't improve or enhance any aspect of the theory.
I agree it's not needed. Biology is a science and science deals with things as we find them. Science does not answer the question of why is there anything at all. We all look at the complexity of our existence, and if we don't ignore the issue all together come to our own conclusions of whether there is intelligent design or not.
EZScience writes:
To scientists it isn't obvious at all.
I read about science as a hobby and I envy scientists their knowledge of things scientific, but I don't agree that they are necessarily better able to answer philosophical or theological questions than anyone else.
Thanks for the reasoned reply.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by EZscience, posted 05-05-2006 12:18 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2006 1:40 PM GDR has replied
 Message 64 by EZscience, posted 05-05-2006 2:22 PM GDR has replied
 Message 67 by Parasomnium, posted 05-05-2006 2:36 PM GDR has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 62 of 148 (309395)
05-05-2006 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by GDR
05-05-2006 1:33 PM


Re: Accidents
I would add though, that there is no evidence that supports the notion that there is no intelligence behind our existance.
The evidence is the lack of any evidence that supports the notion of intelligence behind our existence.
Everything about the universe, the world, human and non-human life is incredibly complex and in my view anything that complex very strongly indicates a designer.
If literally everything is complex, then how do you recognize complexity? If there's no simplicity in the universe, what makes you think that it's even possible for something to be simple?
I read about science as a hobby and I envy scientists their knowledge of things scientific, but I don't agree that they are necessarily better able to answer philosophical or theological questions than anyone else.
Questions about how living things then became the living things we have now are not philosophical or theological, they're biological.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by GDR, posted 05-05-2006 1:33 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by GDR, posted 05-05-2006 1:51 PM crashfrog has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 63 of 148 (309398)
05-05-2006 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by crashfrog
05-05-2006 1:40 PM


Re: Accidents
crashfrog writes:
The evidence is the lack of any evidence that supports the notion of intelligence behind our existence.
Lack of evidence is not evidence.
crashfrog writes:
If literally everything is complex, then how do you recognize complexity? If there's no simplicity in the universe, what makes you think that it's even possible for something to be simple?
There are certainly degrees of complexity. The human body is relatively complex compared to a rock.
crashfrog writes:
Questions about how living things then became the living things we have now are not philosophical or theological, they're biological.
I agree, but I'm talking about why living things became what we have now, not how. The why is philosophical and/or theological.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2006 1:40 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2006 2:28 PM GDR has replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 64 of 148 (309409)
05-05-2006 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by GDR
05-05-2006 1:33 PM


Re: Accidents
I can see you are a rationale and objective person and you have apparently reached a 'personal equilibrium' w/r/t the design issue vs. science. I don't want to be argumentative or try and disrupt that equilibrium, but I will address this:
GDR writes:
I would add though, that there is no evidence that supports the notion that there is no intelligence behind our existance.
A lack of evidence *against* an idea that has no evidence *for* it is hardly a compelling reason to espouse it, or even justification for considering it.
But you are right on the philosophy and theology.
It always kind of bothered me that the highest degree in science is 'Doctor of Philosophy' when it should be 'Doctor of Science'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by GDR, posted 05-05-2006 1:33 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by GDR, posted 05-05-2006 2:35 PM EZscience has not replied
 Message 74 by GDR, posted 05-05-2006 3:39 PM EZscience has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 65 of 148 (309413)
05-05-2006 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by GDR
05-05-2006 1:51 PM


Re: Accidents
Lack of evidence is not evidence.The human body is relatively complex compared to a rock.
If even a stupid rock can be complex, what makes you think you need intelligence to have complexity? What, God hand-made every single rock?
I agree, but I'm talking about why living things became what we have now, not how.
The "why" is because, if they didn't become that, they wouldn't have survived. And a lot of organisms haven't.
What makes you think that "why" has to be philosophic every time it's asked?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by GDR, posted 05-05-2006 1:51 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by GDR, posted 05-05-2006 2:40 PM crashfrog has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 66 of 148 (309415)
05-05-2006 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by EZscience
05-05-2006 2:22 PM


Re: Accidents
EZScience writes:
A lack of evidence *against* an idea that has no evidence *for* it is hardly a compelling reason to espouse it, or even justification for considering it.
But this is true from either of our positions. There is a lack of evidence for there not being an external designer as well. As I said earlier science is agnostic. Why the natural world exists as all is not a question that science deals with.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by EZscience, posted 05-05-2006 2:22 PM EZscience has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 67 of 148 (309416)
05-05-2006 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by GDR
05-05-2006 1:33 PM


Re: Accidents
GDR writes:
[...] there is no evidence that supports the notion that there is no intelligence behind our existance.
No offence intended, GDR, but when you look at that statement from a logical point of view, it makes no sense. Logically there can be no evidence of the absence of anything.
This morning, a flying saucer did not land in my backyard. I know this, because I was there all morning. But my neighbour, who was out all day, is not so sure. "There's no evidence that supports that a flying saucer did not land in your backyard this morning", he keeps telling me.
Otherwise, he's a percfectly normal chap, my neighbour.
(To be honest, I just made it up, what he said, for the sake of argument.)
Let me make it obvious by replacing 'intelligence' in your original statement with erm... well, with the IPU, why not. As mythical creatures go, the IPU is as good as any.
So, we get: "there is no evidence that supports the notion that there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn behind our existence." If it sounds just a tiny bit strange to you, then perhaps you'll understand why I find the original a bit strange too. That's because it's just not logical.
Everything about the universe, the world, human and non-human life is incredibly complex and in my view anything that complex very strongly indicates a designer.
That's because you look at it from a designer's point of view. If you were a sloth, you'd think the ground was the sky.
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 05-May-2006 07:37 PM

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by GDR, posted 05-05-2006 1:33 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2006 2:46 PM Parasomnium has replied
 Message 72 by GDR, posted 05-05-2006 2:53 PM Parasomnium has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 68 of 148 (309418)
05-05-2006 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by crashfrog
05-05-2006 2:28 PM


Re: Accidents
crashfrog writes:
If even a stupid rock can be complex, what makes you think you need intelligence to have complexity? What, God hand-made every single rock?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster. What else?
crashfrog writes:
The "why" is because, if they didn't become that, they wouldn't have survived. And a lot of organisms haven't.
Your answer is always about what science can discern from the natural world. I'm talking about why a system that is designed to support the evolutionary process you describe exists at all.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2006 2:28 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2006 2:47 PM GDR has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 69 of 148 (309421)
05-05-2006 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Parasomnium
05-05-2006 2:36 PM


Re: Accidents
Logically there can be no evidence of the absence of anything.
Then how do you know when to buy milk when you're at the store?
"Honey, I'm about to go to the store. Do we need milk?"
"Well, let me check. I don't see any evidence of any milk in here, but that's hardly evidence that we have an absence of milk."
"Ok, I guess I'll just save 3 bucks and not buy any. After all I can't be sure we actually need some."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Parasomnium, posted 05-05-2006 2:36 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Parasomnium, posted 05-05-2006 2:50 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 76 by Parasomnium, posted 05-05-2006 3:42 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 70 of 148 (309423)
05-05-2006 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by GDR
05-05-2006 2:40 PM


Re: Accidents
I'm talking about why a system that is designed to support the evolutionary process you describe exists at all.
What makes you think it could be any other way?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by GDR, posted 05-05-2006 2:40 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by GDR, posted 05-05-2006 2:56 PM crashfrog has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 71 of 148 (309424)
05-05-2006 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by crashfrog
05-05-2006 2:46 PM


Re: Accidents
Then how do you know when to buy milk when you're at the store?
Hmmm...
Let me get back to you on that.
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 05-May-2006 08:03 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2006 2:46 PM crashfrog has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 72 of 148 (309427)
05-05-2006 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Parasomnium
05-05-2006 2:36 PM


Re: Accidents
parasomnium writes:
No offence intended, GDR, but when you look at that statement from a logical point of view, it makes no sense. Logically there can be no evidence of the absence of anything.
This morning, a flying saucer did not land in my backyard. I know this, because I was there all morning. But my neighbour, who was out all day, is not so sure. "There's no evidence that supports that a flying saucer did not land in your backyard this morning", he keeps telling me.
The trouble is that you, like crash, keep giving examples from the physical world. We can test and examine things in the physical world with the scientific method. Anything outside of the physical world can not be tested that way.
Using the scientific method, (or any other method that I know of), you cannot prove to me that the metaphysical does not exist and I can't prove to you that it does.
parasomnium writes:
Let me make it obvious by replacing 'intelligence' in your original statement with erm... well, with the IPU, why not. As mythical creatures go, the IPU is as good as any.
So, we get: "there is no evidence that supports the notion that there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn behind our existence." If it sounds just a tiny bit strange to you, then perhaps you'll understand why I find the original a bit strange too. That's because it's just not logical.
Absolutely. If you want to belive in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Flying Sphaghetti Monster, then I can't prove to you that they don't exist. My own reasoning would lead me to believe that you are wrong.
If you want to compare your example though to the idea that there is intelligence behind the natural world then you are free to do so, but I think that it makes your argument look just a little silly.
parasomnium writes:
That's because you look at it from a designer's point of view. If you were a sloth, you'd think the ground was the sky.
You're right, and maybe that is why that the more science learns about our creation the more radically different it is as compared to what it seems.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Parasomnium, posted 05-05-2006 2:36 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Parasomnium, posted 05-05-2006 3:41 PM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 73 of 148 (309429)
05-05-2006 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by crashfrog
05-05-2006 2:47 PM


Re: Accidents
carshfrog writes:
What makes you think it could be any other way?
I have no idea whether it could be any other way or not. As far as the physical world is concerned I can only learn about what is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2006 2:47 PM crashfrog has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 74 of 148 (309438)
05-05-2006 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by EZscience
05-05-2006 2:22 PM


Re: Accidents
EZScience writes:
you have apparently reached a 'personal equilibrium' w/r/t the design issue vs. science.
It occurred to me as an after-thought that I just wanted to point out that I don't agree that a "design issue vs. science" problem exists. I just see science as the study of that which is designed.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by EZscience, posted 05-05-2006 2:22 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by EZscience, posted 05-05-2006 3:44 PM GDR has replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 75 of 148 (309439)
05-05-2006 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by GDR
05-05-2006 2:53 PM


Re: Accidents
GDR writes:
Using the scientific method, (or any other method that I know of), you cannot prove to me that the metaphysical does not exist and I can't prove to you that it does.
The problem is that, in principle, I can never definitely prove the non-existence of anything. Logic doesn't allow it. On the other hand, again in principle, you might be able to prove the existence of the metaphysical. Science perhaps precludes it, but logic does not. If it exists, logic permits its provability.
If you want to belive in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Flying Sphaghetti Monster, then I can't prove to you that they don't exist. My own reasoning would lead me to believe that you are wrong.
Then I'd love to hear that reasoning of yours, because then I'd only need to replace the variables in your reasoning with something else, to arrive at the same conclusion about your belief.
If you want to compare your example though to the idea that there is intelligence behind the natural world then you are free to do so, but I think that it makes your argument look just a little silly.
Silly? How? Could you please explain that?
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 05-May-2006 08:59 PM

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by GDR, posted 05-05-2006 2:53 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by GDR, posted 05-05-2006 4:01 PM Parasomnium has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024