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: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution guided by god? Or a natural process?
JaysonD
Junior Member (Idle past 5515 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 31 of 44 (499409)
02-18-2009 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by New Cat's Eye
02-18-2009 12:54 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2009 12:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by bluegenes, posted 02-18-2009 2:43 PM JaysonD has replied
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2009 3:00 PM JaysonD has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 32 of 44 (499410)
02-18-2009 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by JaysonD
02-18-2009 2:36 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by JaysonD, posted 02-18-2009 2:36 PM JaysonD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by JaysonD, posted 02-18-2009 4:40 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 44 (499418)
02-18-2009 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by JaysonD
02-18-2009 2:36 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by JaysonD, posted 02-18-2009 2:36 PM JaysonD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by JaysonD, posted 02-18-2009 4:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
JaysonD
Junior Member (Idle past 5515 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 34 of 44 (499435)
02-18-2009 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by New Cat's Eye
02-18-2009 3:00 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2009 3:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2009 4:53 PM JaysonD has replied

  
JaysonD
Junior Member (Idle past 5515 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 35 of 44 (499437)
02-18-2009 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by bluegenes
02-18-2009 2:43 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by bluegenes, posted 02-18-2009 2:43 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 44 (499441)
02-18-2009 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by JaysonD
02-18-2009 4:33 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by JaysonD, posted 02-18-2009 4:33 PM JaysonD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by JaysonD, posted 02-18-2009 5:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
JaysonD
Junior Member (Idle past 5515 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 37 of 44 (499452)
02-18-2009 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by New Cat's Eye
02-18-2009 4:53 PM


How about this. Ignoring my previous statements. Will you present a valid argument for intelligent design?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2009 4:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-19-2009 10:30 AM JaysonD has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 44 (499596)
02-19-2009 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by JaysonD
02-18-2009 5:33 PM


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:
That being said, I'd say the only arguement possible for guided evolution is "I have faith it is so, and you can't disprove faith"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by JaysonD, posted 02-18-2009 5:33 PM JaysonD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by JaysonD, posted 02-19-2009 4:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 39 of 44 (499626)
02-19-2009 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Rahvin
02-18-2009 12:54 AM


Re: LOL nothing like a little deja vu
And I even gave that specific argument as well:
But your specific argument is contrary to what Inge wants to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Rahvin, posted 02-18-2009 12:54 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 40 of 44 (499627)
02-19-2009 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by JaysonD
02-18-2009 12:07 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by JaysonD, posted 02-18-2009 12:07 PM JaysonD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by JaysonD, posted 02-19-2009 4:37 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
JaysonD
Junior Member (Idle past 5515 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 41 of 44 (499657)
02-19-2009 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Adequate
02-19-2009 1:31 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2009 1:31 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
JaysonD
Junior Member (Idle past 5515 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 42 of 44 (499658)
02-19-2009 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by New Cat's Eye
02-19-2009 10:30 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-19-2009 10:30 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2009 9:11 AM JaysonD has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 44 (499768)
02-20-2009 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by JaysonD
02-19-2009 4:49 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by JaysonD, posted 02-19-2009 4:49 PM JaysonD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by JaysonD, posted 02-20-2009 3:40 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
JaysonD
Junior Member (Idle past 5515 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 44 of 44 (499809)
02-20-2009 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by New Cat's Eye
02-20-2009 9:11 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2009 9:11 AM New Cat's Eye 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