Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   too intelligent to actually be intelligent?
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 121 of 304 (390490)
03-20-2007 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by crashfrog
03-20-2007 3:53 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
crashfrog writes:
It's a great argument, actually, unless you lower your expectations for what an omnipotent eternal figure should be capable of. You have, apparently.
First of all, it is still not a good argument, because if IDers say that the body is perfect and this proves God, they are laughed at. If evolutionists say the body is not perfect and this proves no God. it is also silly. Neither proves anything.
Besides, it is not fair or true to say that a person must lower their expectations of God. It is quite possible that our own minds must change rather than God. In other words, what God is or is not capable of is beyond us. If we have our petty ideas about perfection, that is our fault. Most theists don't see God as limited to the body anyway. Claims of the miraculous are always greater than body, greater than creation. It is a roundabout way of admitting flaws in creation compared to the power of God. For the most part, the idea of a flawed humanity, physical or otherwise, is no real shocker to a theist. If we didn't see flaws, why all this nonsense about a new and glorious body, beyond corruption?
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by crashfrog, posted 03-20-2007 3:53 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by NosyNed, posted 03-20-2007 5:47 PM anastasia has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 122 of 304 (390491)
03-20-2007 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by anastasia
03-20-2007 5:31 PM


The "We don't know nuttin'" argument
In other words, what God is or is not capable of is beyond us.
This, in one form or another, seems to be cropping up a lot recently.
It seems to be an admission that God is so beyond us we can't know what he/she/it is like or thinks like or might or might not do.
So how could this God be the source of any understanding or guidance. We don't know what it would preceive as being right/wrong or anything else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by anastasia, posted 03-20-2007 5:31 PM anastasia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by jar, posted 03-20-2007 6:34 PM NosyNed has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 123 of 304 (390492)
03-20-2007 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by GDR
03-20-2007 10:50 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
GDR
I agree that you pose an interesting question but there will never be an answer to it in this life time. If I am correct in my beliefs we should find out the answers in the next life. I know I'll be going to all the lectures
Nope. You do not get off that easily my friend. You are at present defending the notion of Intelligent Design which implicates intelligence as being necessary in order for complexity to occur. Since, it seems reasonable, we may also assume that the 'intelligence' you are submitting exists is also a complex entity.
If we are to be honest in our appraisal of this concept then we must allow it to be universally applicable. So I ask you once again to explain the intelligence that is behind the "intelligence" you would have us accept as correct because complexity such as this must have an intelligence behind it according to the arguement you defend sir.
Failing this I would suggest that the notion of intelligent design fails in application and is no more than a mockery of thinking and logic.

"The world is so exquisite, with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better, it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look Death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides." - Carl Sagan, Billions and Billions

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 10:50 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 7:40 PM sidelined has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 124 of 304 (390494)
03-20-2007 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by NosyNed
03-20-2007 5:47 PM


Re: The "We don't know nuttin'" argument
So how could this God be the source of any understanding or guidance. We don't know what it would preceive as being right/wrong or anything else.
Heading way, way off topic, but since both the comment you are responding to as well as your argument seem to come up regularly, let me try to answer.
The guidance we get from GOD is guidance meant to help us get along with others and to live life. The fact that we are not capable of understanding GOD is irrelevant. When it comes to guidance GOD speaks to us on our level, brings things way down to simple lessons even humans can understand.
But those who argue that we cannot make judgments of GOD's competency by looking at critters are just looking for an easy copout. Of course we can make such judgments. If someone claims that the final products we call living things are the direct result of some Intelligent Designer, then it is absolutely right to judge the product in relation to the other intelligent designer we are aware of.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by NosyNed, posted 03-20-2007 5:47 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by anastasia, posted 03-20-2007 10:43 PM jar has not replied

ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 125 of 304 (390499)
03-20-2007 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by crashfrog
03-19-2007 11:06 PM


message retracted due to violation
Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 03-19-2007 11:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 03-20-2007 7:39 PM ICdesign has replied

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


Message 126 of 304 (390500)
03-20-2007 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by GDR
03-20-2007 4:23 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
I still contend it is a weak argument against Theistic Evolution.
Well, that's fair enough; I wasn't aware that it had been offered in that way. I'm not sure what the specific claims of theistic evolution are. Is that like Deism?
I believe that we are more than just physical beings. I see us as spiritual beings in a physical body. (This is philosophical and 100% non-scientific.)
You say that's not scientific, but you're still making an existential claim supported by no evidence. And even philosophy requires that statements be supported by some evidence. What you're talking about is a statement of faith. I can't rebut faith, but I can tell you that there's no evidence of "souls", or of any spiritual realm; and there's a lot loaded into those concepts that's internally contradictory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 4:23 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 7:51 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 127 of 304 (390501)
03-20-2007 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by ICdesign
03-20-2007 7:22 PM


Re: ICDESIGN vs. CRASHFROG
How about instead of grandstanding, you address rebuttals by introducing evidence?
I'm not interested in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. First you wanted to debate; next you wanted me to shut up; now you're offering to box me or something. The common thread through all these behaviors is a complete inability to address the materials put before you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by ICdesign, posted 03-20-2007 7:22 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Chiroptera, posted 03-20-2007 7:48 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 132 by ICdesign, posted 03-20-2007 8:04 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 128 of 304 (390503)
03-20-2007 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by sidelined
03-20-2007 5:55 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
sidelined writes:
Nope. You do not get off that easily my friend. You are at present defending the notion of Intelligent Design which implicates intelligence as being necessary in order for complexity to occur. Since, it seems reasonable, we may also assume that the 'intelligence' you are submitting exists is also a complex entity.
If we are to be honest in our appraisal of this concept then we must allow it to be universally applicable. So I ask you once again to explain the intelligence that is behind the "intelligence" you would have us accept as correct because complexity such as this must have an intelligence behind it according to the arguement you defend sir.
Failing this I would suggest that the notion of intelligent design fails in application and is no more than a mockery of thinking and logic.
First off I'll repeat what I said earlier as I gave you a partial answer which you ignored in your response.
Time is a fascinating thing. It is a feature of our universe that allows us to understand change. We have no way of understanding other dimensions yet various scientific theories postulate various other dimensions including other time dimensions. A molecule of light doesn't experience the passage of time.
I am not trying to suggest that is a complete answer but it does to a degree point out that what we know empirically is limited. I could ask if we can KNOW anything philosophically. There are always going to be questions that we have that are going to be a mystery scientifically.
I contend that time is a feature of this existence and that it isn't part of God's existence. If I am correct in this then what was before God has no relevance as there would be no before or no after to talk about. My mind is limited to the 4 dimensions that we know. I have no idea how change occurs in a world without a time dimension such as ours.
Your question is about the same as asking a scientist what happened at t=0. We can speculate but there is no definitive answer. Even if I am 100% correct in my belief of a IDer who exists outside of time as we know it, I, nor anybody else, will be able to prove it.
So, what I'm saying is that you have set up a strawman. In a way it would be like convincing my dog that I can't exist because he can't understand my thought processes. I would even go as far to say that God wouldn't be much of IDer if I did have an intelligence that could fully comprehend his.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by sidelined, posted 03-20-2007 5:55 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by sidelined, posted 03-20-2007 7:54 PM GDR has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 304 (390504)
03-20-2007 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by crashfrog
03-20-2007 7:39 PM


Re: ICDESIGN vs. CRASHFROG
Were his emails like this?

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 03-20-2007 7:39 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 130 of 304 (390505)
03-20-2007 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by crashfrog
03-20-2007 7:30 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
crashfrog writes:
Well, that's fair enough; I wasn't aware that it had been offered in that way. I'm not sure what the specific claims of theistic evolution are. Is that like Deism?
My view is that it would be broader than Deism. As I see it TE can be looked at in a couple of ways. One way would see the IDer setting the evolutionary process in motion and the design being complete at that point. I'm more inclined to think that there was intervention over time but I'm open to either. All we know is that genetic mutations occurred that resulted in what we have today.
crashfrog writes:
You say that's not scientific, but you're still making an existential claim supported by no evidence. And even philosophy requires that statements be supported by some evidence. What you're talking about is a statement of faith. I can't rebut faith, but I can tell you that there's no evidence of "souls", or of any spiritual realm; and there's a lot loaded into those concepts that's internally contradictory.
The thing is crash you aren't prepared to accept any evidence that isn't scientific. (In my view anyway, but maybe I'm wrong.)As I said earlier I see consciousness, our moral code, our emotions, our sense of beauty as being evidence that we are something more than physical. I know that you don't accept that as evidence but I would suggest that philosophically speaking it is evidence. It is not evidence however that provides a conclusive answer. You and I differ on the conclusions that we draw from that evidence.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by crashfrog, posted 03-20-2007 7:30 PM crashfrog has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 131 of 304 (390506)
03-20-2007 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by GDR
03-20-2007 7:40 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
GDR
Even if I am 100% correct in my belief of a IDer who exists outside of time as we know it, I, nor anybody else, will be able to prove it.
What does that have anything to do with the question? I am asking you to explain why the notion of Id being required for explaining complexity falls apart when we apply the statement to the intelligence itself? Since the purpose of Intelligent design is to offer an explanation for complexity then it must also be able to explain the complexity of the intelligence itself regardless of whether they live outside of time or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 7:40 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 9:19 PM sidelined has replied

ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 132 of 304 (390509)
03-20-2007 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by crashfrog
03-20-2007 7:39 PM


Re: ICDESIGN vs. CRASHFROG
If I'm so unarmed then you don't have a reason to be afraid
then do you? You keep refering to me as being too dumb
to have a reason to be on this site so I want everyone to be
watching when I cram it down your throat big mouth!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 03-20-2007 7:39 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by crashfrog, posted 03-20-2007 8:11 PM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 134 by AdminAsgara, posted 03-20-2007 8:12 PM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 135 by AdminQuetzal, posted 03-20-2007 8:14 PM ICdesign has replied

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


Message 133 of 304 (390512)
03-20-2007 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by ICdesign
03-20-2007 8:04 PM


Re: ICDESIGN vs. CRASHFROG
Again, personal attacks are irrelevant. The only thing that supports your arguments is evidence, and you've presented none.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by ICdesign, posted 03-20-2007 8:04 PM ICdesign has not replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 134 of 304 (390513)
03-20-2007 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by ICdesign
03-20-2007 8:04 PM


FORUM GUIDELINES
Please review the Forum Guidelines that you agreed to abide by when you registered at this site. If this type of taunting continues you will be suspended.
Take any issues you have with this post to the appropriate thread in my signature.

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 132 by ICdesign, posted 03-20-2007 8:04 PM ICdesign has not replied

    AdminQuetzal
    Inactive Member


    Message 135 of 304 (390514)
    03-20-2007 8:14 PM
    Reply to: Message 132 by ICdesign
    03-20-2007 8:04 PM


    Re: ICDESIGN vs. CRASHFROG
    If you are proposing a Great Debate - which is one-one-one with a specific topic - this is not the way to go about it. Any further insults or flaming from either side on this will result in a short time out to allow the perpetrator(s) to peruse the Forum Guidelines at their leisure.
    If you wish to propose a Great Debate, please so indicate. If not, be aware I will tolerate no further insulting remarks. Copy?

    "Here come da Judge" - Flip Wilson
    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics
    New Members: Important threads to make your stay more enjoyable:
    Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 132 by ICdesign, posted 03-20-2007 8:04 PM ICdesign has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 136 by ICdesign, posted 03-20-2007 8:47 PM AdminQuetzal 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