|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
inge1990 Guest |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution guided by god? Or a natural process? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
JaysonD Junior Member (Idle past 5544 days) Posts: 12 Joined: |
Ok, I think my language was a little inexact, maybe I should have said:
The only successful argument for evolution guided by an intelligent creator is ... Also (as indicated up-thread) you've only presented a possible format for an argument and not an actual argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
JaysonD writes: Ok, I think my language was a little inexact, maybe I should have said:The only successful argument for evolution guided by an intelligent creator is ... I think you're being rather generous in describing the "faith" argument as successful. It can be used for anything, and means nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Ok, I think my language was a little inexact, maybe I should have said: I think you are just wrong
The only successful argument for evolution guided by an intelligent creator is ... But the argument is not successful.
Also (as indicated up-thread) you've only presented a possible format for an argument and not an actual argument. So what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JaysonD Junior Member (Idle past 5544 days) Posts: 12 Joined: |
I think you are just wrong wouldn't be the first time.
Also (as indicated up-thread) you've only presented a possible format for an argument and not an actual argument. So what?
So you didn't make your point. And I still contend you can't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JaysonD Junior Member (Idle past 5544 days) Posts: 12 Joined: |
I think you're being rather generous in describing the "faith" argument as successful. It can be used for anything, and means nothing. Your probably right. I just tacked it on in an attempt to make sure my other statements weren't taken as support for Intelligent design. But I do think it would at least be successful as a defense for [what I perceive as] an otherwise unsupportable position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I think you are just wrong
wouldn't be the first time.
nor the last
Also (as indicated up-thread) you've only presented a possible format for an argument and not an actual argument. So what?
So you didn't make your point. And I still contend you can't.
My point was that another type of argument is possible. That I presented the format for such an argument shows that it is, indeed, possible and, thus, makes my point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JaysonD Junior Member (Idle past 5544 days) Posts: 12 Joined: |
How about this. Ignoring my previous statements. Will you present a valid argument for intelligent design?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Ignoring my previous statements. Will you present a valid argument for intelligent design? I'm not aware of any valid arguments for ID. There's sound arguments for it, but the arguments are invalidated by the fallaciousness of the premesis. Now, what you said in Message 26 was:
quote: I'm guessing you were trying to say that that is the only argument that has not been invalidated? That's because you can't falsify the premises. But still, I'm not so sure the argument is sound so, really, I still don't get what you were getting at there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And I even gave that specific argument as well: But your specific argument is contrary to what Inge wants to say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I have to disagree here. You'd be an pretty extaordinary programmer if you only wrote programs which never needed any fixes or updates. Well color me extraordinary.
And along the same lines this arguement fails in that it assumes god is either perfect and all-knowing or non-existant. I thought that perfection and omniscience were part of the definition. In any case, I'm fairly sure that Inge is not a Gnostic arguing for the existence of a demiurge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JaysonD Junior Member (Idle past 5544 days) Posts: 12 Joined: |
I thought that perfection and omniscience were part of the definition. In any case, I'm fairly sure that Inge is not a Gnostic arguing for the existence of a demiurge. Your probably right about that. But to stretch your analogy further than I should. I just really like the idea of god sitting at a work station somewhere cussing all the idiot users "What the hell are they doing? That monkey code was never supposed to be run on an city platform. Am I going to have to patch the intelligence again?" Edited by JaysonD, : Minor rewording
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JaysonD Junior Member (Idle past 5544 days) Posts: 12 Joined: |
I'm guessing you were trying to say that that is the only argument that has not been invalidated? That's because you can't falsify the premises. But still, I'm not so sure the argument is sound so, really, I still don't get what you were getting at there. I think your taking my initial statement a little too seriously. That or your being intentionally obtuse for the sake of an argument. I'll grant that my initial statement was poorly worded. But at least by now my intention should be clear. Specifically Intelligent Design is a concept based on faith or belief (if there's a distinction). Accordingly forming a logical argument in support of it is going to be an uphill battle at best. Consequently proponents of ID tend to be left with emotional or spiritual appeals in place of arguments grounded in logic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I think your taking my initial statement a little too seriously. That or your being intentionally obtuse for the sake of an argument. I'll grant that my initial statement was poorly worded. The poor wording of your initial statement improperly conveyed both your inention and seriousness. Its all your fault
But at least by now my intention should be clear. Specifically Intelligent Design is a concept based on faith or belief (if there's a distinction). In general, ID is what you say it is but it doesn't have to be. And as a concept, I don't think it is based on faith and belief. I think it ends up falling on faith and belief, when the arguments are shown to be invalid, but I don't think that faith and belief are the basis of the arguments.
Accordingly forming a logical argument in support of it is going to be an uphill battle at best. An argument can easily be logical and false. I think you mean a valid argument, which not only depends on the logic but also the truth of the premises. The problem with ID is not just their logic, its their fallacious premises.
Consequently proponents of ID tend to be left with emotional or spiritual appeals in place of arguments grounded in logic. Because of the lack of truth in their premises, not because of the lack of logic in their arguments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JaysonD Junior Member (Idle past 5544 days) Posts: 12 Joined: |
And as a concept, I don't think [ID] is based on faith and belief. I think it ends up falling on faith and belief, when the arguments are shown to be invalid, This is interesting. Care to expand on it? What do you say are the actual premises of ID?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024