Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design or unthinking blasphemy?
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 91 of 162 (341179)
08-18-2006 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by mitchellmckain
08-18-2006 6:21 PM


Re: Have we really drifted from the topic?
It may be more true of the agnostic crowd, but it is certainly not true of the majority of atheists.
We are probably just disagreeing on who we call atheists. You are correct with respect to outspoken atheists. But what about all of the people who just mind their own business and avoid religion? They live their lives without theism, so they are atheists in that sense of the term.
..., and this willfull and organized promotion of rhetoric as if it were science is definitely the greater tragedy.
I agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-18-2006 6:21 PM mitchellmckain has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 162 (341185)
08-18-2006 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by RickJB
08-18-2006 1:31 AM


Re: Omniscience and knowability
Exactly, so why expect science to pay heed to ID? The only "evidence" for ID is an endless round of PRATT-based ToE criticism. No positive evidence.
ID is being unbiased by not attempting to ascertain who or what the Designer(s) is/are. ID only gives positive reasons why it is more likely that life is intelligently designed, as opposed to a successive, random, and capricious disorder giving rise to extant and extinct species. I really don't know why many people think that arguments in support of ID only entail negative aspects about evolution. That is patently false.
There is a list of a hundreds of arguments in support of it.
http://www.creationwiki.net/index.php?title=Main_Page
Do you agree, therefore, that ID is not science and must be kept out of science class?
I agree that teaching theology has no place within the science classroom, nor does science have any room in a theology classroom. In other words, I would be inclined to agree that "creationism" is a personal belief, whether it be right or wrong, and should not be implented into the science curricula. However, because ID simply seeks to recognize that a cognizance beyond our own explains through scientific inquiry the bases for our existence, this should be introduced into the curricula. I also believe that evolution should remain in the curricula. I believe both should be taught until one or both are falsified beyond any reasonable doubt. Let the students decide.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by RickJB, posted 08-18-2006 1:31 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by RickJB, posted 08-19-2006 3:08 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 162 (341186)
08-18-2006 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by sidelined
08-18-2006 3:02 AM


Re: Omniscience and knowability
Then how do you arrive at the conclusion that the design is implemented by intelligence? Indeed,as a matter of topic here,what do you consider intelligence to mean as applies intelligent design?
Because there is far too much order to come by way of chance after chance after chance. The odds that we've managed to stave off total annihilation in 4.5 billion years of time without the intervention of some higher cognizance is inconcievable. Things don't just magically happen, least of all, life coming from non-life. I believe that Occam's Razor in defense of ID so far beyond the normative theory of macroevolution to the point of it being insuperable.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by sidelined, posted 08-18-2006 3:02 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2006 8:02 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 101 by sidelined, posted 08-19-2006 11:43 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 94 of 162 (341188)
08-18-2006 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Hyroglyphx
08-18-2006 7:47 PM


Re: Omniscience and knowability
Things don't just magically happen
But that's exactly the model you support. God magically doing things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-18-2006 7:47 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-18-2006 8:06 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 162 (341189)
08-18-2006 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by mitchellmckain
08-18-2006 4:18 AM


Re: response to nwr's and nemesis' discussion on God's omniscience
Thanks for asking. He gives the same privacy to everyone. He gives us the privacy of our future actions. He doesn't peek at what we are going to do. Of course, as I said before, sin destroys free will and so there are some people who are so utterly predictable, that He would not need to peek anyway.
If that were the case, then how is prophecy possible. I'm not saying that God couldn't give us privacy, but how could He in one instance, grant us all privacy to our future events, but in the next instance, know what we are going to do before it happens for us along a real timeline?
Ok, maybe this is beating a dead horse since you practically conceded the point when you said "good point". But I thought I would point out that I agree with what you say in these statments but that they illustrate why saying "God cannot sin" is no limitation upon God. You try to distinguish between killing and murder, but the murderer also kills the people who break "their law". But God's law defines true right from true wrong so if He kills it is justice. If He takes, He is only taking what is His. If He says something, His power probably makes it true.
Because God makes a distinction. Acrroding to Scripture, David killed Goliath, but he murdered Bathsheeba's husband. I guess its like how a police officer can kill a man, but he can't murder a man. I think very strongly there is a distinguishing term. It may be a bit ambiguous to us, but I think we could all concieve of it.
Do you think that God has never said anything which is untrue? Try Genesis 6:7 where He said that He would destroy every human being and animal on earth. But he didn't destroy every human being and animal on earth. Ok poor example, this could be called changing His mind and not lying.
No, I think that's just an example of God ommiting certain information. Case in point, lets stay in Genesis, where God asked Cain, "Where is your brother?" Did God not know what Cain had done to Abel? Of course He did, that's why He said right after, "The blood of your brother cries out from the ground." I mean, God could not possibly divulge every aspect of Himself to us. That isn't God lying. As far as God saying that He was going to destroy all life on earth, apparently He did, save 8 people, 7 of every clean animal, and 2 pairs of every unclean animal. I don't see that as Him changing His mind. I see where you could make the argument, but we are supposed to look at Scripture in plenary in order to ascertain the more pressing matters. Could God change His mind? I suppose its possible, as in Abraham trying to barter with God to spare the Sodomites if there were 10 righteous people within the gates. I don't know the answer to that.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-18-2006 4:18 AM mitchellmckain has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 162 (341190)
08-18-2006 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by crashfrog
08-18-2006 8:02 PM


Re: Omniscience and knowability
But that's exactly the model you support. God magically doing things.
Magic has nothing to do with it. Miraculous, yes, magic, no.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2006 8:02 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2006 9:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 104 by ramoss, posted 08-19-2006 6:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 97 of 162 (341202)
08-18-2006 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Hyroglyphx
08-18-2006 8:06 PM


Re: Omniscience and knowability
Magic has nothing to do with it. Miraculous, yes, magic, no.
I'm sorry, but I can't possibly be bothered to discern the details of your own private system of woowoo.
Miracles are magic. It says so in the Player's Handbook! It's right there in the spellbook under "M": Miracle, a 9th-level Clr spell. You can't cast it in an anti-magic field, so obviously, Miracle is magic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-18-2006 8:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Buzsaw, posted 08-18-2006 10:10 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 162 (341210)
08-18-2006 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by crashfrog
08-18-2006 9:41 PM


Re: Miracle and Magic
Magic = magic (art), sorcery, of the Maji.
1. the pretended art of producing effects or controlling events by charms, spells and rituals supposed to govern certain natural or supernatural forces; sorcery; witchcraft.
2. any mysterious, seemingly inexplicable, or extraordinary power or influence; as the magic of love.
3. the art of producing baffling effects or illusions by sleight of hand, concealed appratus, etc.
Miracle = 1. an event or action that apparently contradicts known scientific laws and is hence thought to be due to suupernatural causes, especially to an act of God.
2. a remarkable event or thing; marvel.
3. a wonderful example; as he is a miracle of fortitude.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2006 9:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2006 11:29 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 99 of 162 (341238)
08-18-2006 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Buzsaw
08-18-2006 10:10 PM


Re: Miracle and Magic
2. any mysterious, seemingly inexplicable, or extraordinary power or influence; as the magic of love.
is the same as:
1. an event or action that apparently contradicts known scientific laws and is hence thought to be due to suupernatural causes, especially to an act of God.
Look, the Player's Handbook is the definitive source for such things. I mean at least it sets up definitions for its terms, and explains what "supernatural" can actually be taken to mean. (Actually that's in the Monster Manual, but those are both considered part of the Core System.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Buzsaw, posted 08-18-2006 10:10 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Buzsaw, posted 08-19-2006 4:48 PM crashfrog has replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 100 of 162 (341295)
08-19-2006 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Hyroglyphx
08-18-2006 7:41 PM


Re: Omniscience and knowability
nemesis writes:
ID is being unbiased by not attempting to ascertain who or what the Designer(s) is/are.
Riiiight. So ignorance is now equated to being "unbiased", yes?
I'll tell you what, I dare you climb to the top of a tall building and jump off. I predict that gravity will send you crashing to a sticky end, but of course I could just be "biased" towards the idea of gravity...
nemesis writes:
I really don't know why many people think that arguments in support of ID only entail negative aspects about evolution. That is patently false.
It's patently true! The creation wiki consistently misinterprets, misrepresents or criticses mainstream scentific research. The depth of the writers knowledge of these fields is demonstrably limited. There are no positive hypotheses.
nemesis writes:
There is a list of a hundreds of arguments in support of it.
And absolutely NO evidence. ID is rhetoric.
nemesis writes:
I agree that teaching theology has no place within the science classroom.
Agreed. ID is theology. But then you weasel out of this statement with some ridiculous mental gymnastics..
nemesis writes:
ID simply seeks to recognize that a cognizance beyond our own explains through scientific inquiry the bases for our existence, this should be introduced into the curricula.
If, as you say, ID is not attempting to ascertain who or what the Designer is, then what science does ID have to teach?
I can imagine the lesson...
Teacher: Last month we talked about evolution and we looked into the evidence that exists to support it. Today we'll look at ID. ID says that a designer made everything. That's it for ID.
Katie(sits at the front): That's it? But designed by who?
Teacher: No one knows. ID doesn't even try to know.
Katie: How?
Teacher: No one knows. ID doesn't get into how.
Katie: So there's no evidence?
Teacher: I'm afraid not, Katie, but there are hundreds of arguments that say it is true.
Katie: So what can you teach us about the ID process?
Teacher: I'm afraid that's it, Katie. We're done. There goes the lunch bell!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-18-2006 7:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 101 of 162 (341364)
08-19-2006 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Hyroglyphx
08-18-2006 7:47 PM


Re: Omniscience and knowability
nemesis_juggernaut
Because there is far too much order to come by way of chance after chance after chance. The odds that we've managed to stave off total annihilation in 4.5 billion years of time without the intervention of some higher cognizance is inconcievable.
Before I comment I would like you to specify the chances that you are speaking about, that I may not try to debate the wrong instance. As you proceed to do this, though,perhaps you can explain the order that,I assume, is present in any 'higher cognizance' as you put it.
Since you assert that the order present in the universe is impossible to have simply come about by chance then surely the order that this intelligence takes also cannot have 'just happened'. What would be the source of order found here?
Things don't just magically happen, least of all, life coming from non-life. I believe that Occam's Razor in defense of ID so far beyond the normative theory of macroevolution to the point of it being insuperable.
Well since Occam's razor states that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity" then even when you explain the universe in terms of an intelligence then the model has many unnecessary assumptions that are already addressed by TOE through natural means.
Thus the TOE has less entities required to explain things than yours does and ,further,it does not operate on chance alone but is directed through natural selection.

Dear Mrs Chown, Ignore your son's attempts to teach you physics. Physics isn't the most important thing. Love is.
Best wishes, Richard Feynman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-18-2006 7:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 162 (341444)
08-19-2006 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by crashfrog
08-18-2006 11:29 PM


Re: Miracle and Magic
crashfrog writes:
is the same as:
Look, the Player's Handbook is the definitive source for such things. I mean at least it sets up definitions for its terms, and explains what "supernatural" can actually be taken to mean. (Actually that's in the Monster Manual, but those are both considered part of the Core System.)
And look, Crashy, the Player's Handbook is not the dictionary of the English language to most folks. You and I and the rest know there's primary and secondary dictionary meanings to many words. If you take the #1 primary meaning of these words, they have different meanings and connotations in their primary usage. Magic is seldom used in common everyday speach in reference to the supernatural aspects of God. The universal primary word for that is miracle.
Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2006 11:29 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by ringo, posted 08-19-2006 6:20 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 105 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2006 6:31 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 106 by sidelined, posted 08-19-2006 6:45 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 103 of 162 (341463)
08-19-2006 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Buzsaw
08-19-2006 4:48 PM


Re: Miracle and Magic
Buzsaw writes:
Magic is seldom used in common everyday speach in reference to the supernatural aspects of God. The universal primary word for that is miracle.
Suppose a Muslim turned water into wine. Would you call that "miracle" or "magic"?
Suppose a Hindu fed five thousand people with five loaves and two fishes. Miracle or magic?
Suppose a Satanist rose from the dead. Miracle or magic?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Buzsaw, posted 08-19-2006 4:48 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 104 of 162 (341468)
08-19-2006 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Hyroglyphx
08-18-2006 8:06 PM


Re: Omniscience and knowability
From a practical standpoint, what is the difference?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-18-2006 8:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 105 of 162 (341469)
08-19-2006 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Buzsaw
08-19-2006 4:48 PM


Re: Miracle and Magic
Magic is seldom used in common everyday speach in reference to the supernatural aspects of God.
To the contrary, the use of the term "magic" to describe the actions of your supposed "god" is very, very common among people I speak with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Buzsaw, posted 08-19-2006 4:48 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024