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:   Who designed the ID designer(s)?
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 136 of 396 (499786)
02-20-2009 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Stile
02-20-2009 10:55 AM


Re: It's not hard, really
stile writes:
No.
Bertot, the only thing that EVER takes an idea out of the realm of theoretical non-existence and into the realm of "very real" reality is verifiable, objective evidence.
Being "based against objective, verifiable realities" is not enough.
Stile ever principle is based against objective, verfiable evidence. A concept or a thought or an idea, is not real or demonstratale unless it applies to the real world. Your play on words will not assist your efforts here.
The only two possibilites that do exists against reality are they were it was created or it was not.
Question; How do you think that design or creation is and became one of only two possibilites if it is not based in reality.Please answer that question. Reality and the aspects of it are what make it real and not theoretical, design that is, not God at this point. You in a hopeless situation here Stile. Physical reality and not imagination only leave us with two possibilites Stile, not our imagination. Both of which are plausible at this point until we start to look at entropy and the such like.
Conversely, if design or creation is not based in verifable reality,being only one of only two posibilites,then neither is the conclusion that the univrese APPEARS to be a product of itself, which claims also to be based in reality and on verifiable principles
You state:
The physical reality we exist within shows us that almost everything that exists is self constructed.
Your principle here is nonsesical given you own admissions about what establishes verfiable solutions and possibilities and the fact that its premise follows the same of only two logical possibilities against physical realites.
How did reality decide or leave us with only two logical solutions or possibilities? Did I just imagine design the same way you imagine self constructed, I doubt it. I would say they both have evidence in reality. I defy you demonstrate it otherwise.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Stile, posted 02-20-2009 10:55 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Stile, posted 02-20-2009 12:07 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 137 of 396 (499787)
02-20-2009 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Dawn Bertot
02-20-2009 10:18 AM


Re: It's not hard, really
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
Yes, it is still theoretical because you have no way of knowing if the "reality" you percieve is actually real. When you look at anything you don't see atoms or subatomic particles, their existance would be unknown to you, so how can you say for sure that you understand what you perceive to be the actual fundamental functions of the universe? You can't, hence it is a theoretical conclusion.
Actually you have answered your own question. The reality we are looking for at present is not God, only design. If the universe atually exists and it has laws it follows, that is real, therefore the conclusion that it may have very well have been designed IS AS REAL. If as you suggest "real possibilittes have some form of verifiable evidence, that points to them as being possibilities, then the phisical universe certainly falls within that category. Nothing musive, unwarrented, theoretical or imaginary about a designer, as you have now fully admitted.
Would you care to deal with these contradictory statements?
First you say we are not looking for god, just "design". Then you say there is nothing musive, unwarrented, theoretical or imaginary about a "designer".
I thought you said we weren't looking for the designer(god)...?
Which is it...?
What position are you searching for verfiale evidence for, for design or the existence of God.
You are the one that keeps trying to slip god in, as with your "designer" comment above.
If for design, it should be wrapped up in the only two real possibilities against the physical reality of the universe and its laws.
Lets stick with design then. First, what "laws" are you talking about that aren't the reactions of interactions with other things? Be specific. Second, designed for what?
If the physical universe (reality) and its laws exist, then it is obious that this serves as verfiable evidence of the real possibility of a designer, even if you dont like its conclusions.
But I thought you said we weren't looking for the "designer"(god)...?
Again, you contradict yourself. If it's design, then theoretically it can be possible. If it's the design(er) then absolutely not, not in any way. The design(er) would violate our known reality.
AND no matter how much you try to dodge this question, who created the designer?
From your other post:
How can a very well thought out and well delivered joke such as mine always are, offend, a dirty and no talent comedian, ha ha.
I think you missed the point about the jokes being lame, not funny and hacky. I'm only offended at your shitty attempts to be humorous. And, if you consider me a comedian you established that I have a talent, whether you enjoy it or not. Seems like the contradictions keep on coming!
Rodeny Dangerfield you not boy.
Thats a good thing 'cause he's fucking dead.
You know, "That lady is not two-faced, if she were she wouldnt wear that one", "Call me when you have no class", Now thats comedy feakshow.
Yeah in the Catskills during the 50's. It's 2009 you lame ass, get with the times pops.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 10:18 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-21-2009 9:22 AM onifre has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 138 of 396 (499789)
02-20-2009 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Dawn Bertot
02-20-2009 11:19 AM


Again, and again, and again
Bertot writes:
If the physical universe (reality) and its laws exist, then it is obious that this serves as verfiable evidence of the real possibility of a designer, even if you dont like its conclusions.
In order for such a sentence to seem true (even on the surface) to anyone, it requires a defintion of "real" (where you say "real possibility") that has nothing to do with describing the truth about the universe we live in.
The definition of "real" here would be more in line with "existing in theoretical imagination." Our imagination is "real." And every idea within our imagination is "real." But not every idea in our imagination actually describes the truth about the universe we live in. Most of those ideas are only "real" as they exist theoretically within our imagination. Most of them are simply wrong or wishful thinking when concering the truth of the universe we live in. Your idea of Design is indistinguishable from these types of theoretical, imaginary thoughts.
You are equivocating. And you are equivocating in a way that is irrational, delusional, and almost insane if you're honestly trying to talk about the truth regarding our topic.
The only two possibilites that do exists against reality are they were it was created or it was not.
You are equivocating.
Correct -> both possibilities exist "as possibilites."
Incorrect, both possibilites describe the truth of the universe we live in.
There are "very real possibilities" like not being created.
There are "only theoretical" possibilities that do not describe the truth of the universe we live in, like being created.
Stop equivocating.
Reality and the aspects of it are what make it real and not theoretical, design that is, not God at this point.
You are equivocating again.
Design is "real" in the sense that it exists as "a" possibility.
Design is not "real" in the sense that it exists as "a very real" possibility for the truth about our universe.
All "very real" possibilities about the truth of our universe contain verifiable, objective evidence. Design does not have this. Design is, therefore, not a "very real" possibility, but it is like the rest of the possibilities that exist only in our imagination and have nothing to do with the truth about our universe.
You continue to equivocate. You continue to demand that you must be taken seriously. You continue to say that it is obvious and easy.
Yet you're unable to show such. And you are unable to even provide a scrap of verifiable, objective evidence that so much as points in the direction of your idea.
Such confusion is generally compartmentalized into the areas of irrationality, delusion and insanity.
But please go on, I'm sure many people are extremely interested in seeing what you're going to try next.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 11:19 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-21-2009 9:28 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 145 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-22-2009 9:01 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 139 of 396 (499794)
02-20-2009 12:37 PM


TOPIC!!
I know I referred you all over to ID Forum to discuss ID, so this is a distinct improvement. I referred you to this particular post to as a possible place to discuss the design-designer issue.
The present area of discussion is a little...ahem...post-modern, can we get a bit of focus?
It certainly seems like you are all very keen to debate - and I don't want to stop you. Maybe someone wants to make some sense out of the ideas that have cropped up here and either take them elsewhere or propose a new topic?

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 140 of 396 (499896)
02-21-2009 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by onifre
02-20-2009 11:44 AM


Re: It's not hard, really
Onifre writes:
Yes, it is still theoretical because you have no way of knowing if the "reality" you percieve is actually real. When you look at anything you don't see atoms or subatomic particles, their existance would be unknown to you, so how can you say for sure that you understand what you perceive to be the actual fundamental functions of the universe? You can't, hence it is a theoretical conclusion.
Right back where we started from, back to the insanity of questioing reality itself. Please go to Youtube and view the Spaceballs clip, "When will then be now", its makes about as much sense as your above comment, but atleast they know thiers is an attempt at comedy. I will not acknowledge foolish nonesense.
Would you care to deal with these contradictory statements?
First you say we are not looking for god, just "design". Then you say there is nothing musive, unwarrented, theoretical or imaginary about a "designer".
I thought you said we weren't looking for the designer(god)...?
Which is it...?
Your a knothead arent you boy? The design principle could be a result of natural prossess as well as a designer, either are possible until you get to the laws of entropy or the existence of something out of nothing principle, or matter that appears to be finite in its character sustaining and bringing itself into exsistence itself principle. Design however, by itself could be either, or, on the surface. The theist however, is warrented in conclusing a DESIGNER initially.
The obvious design in nature and the design argument are not the all in all for belief in God or a designer, it simply coorborates what we already know through the argument from existence itself and the laws that nature follows and the fact that it appears tobe contiengent on other things, so on and so forth.
The point here is, not that you or I can demonstrate this beyond any doubt, there is always doubt, no matter the weight of evidence. Its simply that the theist is more than justified in drwing such conclusions and is in no way delusional or mystical as Dawkins and others would suggest. He simply an agry little man with an agenda. Besides that he is a really poor on the spot debater.
Lets stick with design then. First, what "laws" are you talking about that aren't the reactions of interactions with other things? Be specific. Second, designed for what?
Reactions of interactions to bring about a specific SAME consistent result, then moving to the next is DESIGN knothead. The reactions of a designed motor vehicle with its other parts constituting interactions is design whether someone put it togoether or it happened naturally. I am not going to answer the second question you asked, its stupid.
I think you missed the point about the jokes being lame, not funny and hacky. I'm only offended at your shitty attempts to be humorous. And, if you consider me a comedian you established that I have a talent, whether you enjoy it or not. Seems like the contradictions keep on coming!
I guess your right, I was worng here, Used Car salesmen and Politicians also have a talent, if we are going to go by their namesake, excuse me comedian. You really should try and leave your comedy out of your attempts to make arguments, it gets inthe way of you making sense.
Thats a good thing 'cause he's fucking dead.
Uh oh, I think you walked right into that one. Thats the point, even dead he is funnier and makes more sense than yourself.
Son if you want to adlib with a master such as myself, you should find some descent material. Hawkeye Pierce, your not.
Yeah in the Catskills during the 50's. It's 2009 you lame ass, get with the times pops.
How ironic you should make such a comment. Yesterday I was going down the road listening to Radio Runs, Jack Benny and those guys, thinking why does it have to deteriorate to you filthy, no class, no talent bums. Everything has to be campared to the dirty or the filthy today or its not funny and ofcurse thats because they have no imagination or talent to do otherwise. Perhaps you should pull out thier tapes and learn from the masters.
BTW, have a nice day.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by onifre, posted 02-20-2009 11:44 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by onifre, posted 02-21-2009 11:57 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 141 of 396 (499897)
02-21-2009 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Stile
02-20-2009 12:07 PM


Re: Again, and again, and again
Stile I will try and get to your latest post during the course of the day.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Stile, posted 02-20-2009 12:07 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 142 of 396 (499910)
02-21-2009 10:16 AM


Manners, Children!
The next impolite and unnecessary remark will get a days suspension!

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 143 of 396 (499934)
02-21-2009 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Dawn Bertot
02-21-2009 9:22 AM


I will give civility a try...for admins sake.
Right back where we started from, back to the insanity of questioing reality itself
I did not question reality I questioned your perception of it. Since nothing can be declaired as absolute, it will remain theorietical.
If you are going to muse philosophically about reality you must understand certain rules about doing that.
The design principle could be a result of natural prossess as well as a designer, either are possible until you get to the laws of entropy or the existence of something out of nothing principle, or matter that appears to be finite in its character sustaining and bringing itself into exsistence itself principle. Design however, by itself could be either, or, on the surface. The theist however, is warrented in conclusing a DESIGNER initially.
The obvious design in nature and the design argument are not the all in all for belief in God or a designer, it simply coorborates what we already know through the argument from existence itself and the laws that nature follows and the fact that it appears tobe contiengent on other things, so on and so forth.
The point here is, not that you or I can demonstrate this beyond any doubt, there is always doubt, no matter the weight of evidence. Its simply that the theist is more than justified in drwing such conclusions and is in no way delusional or mystical as Dawkins and others would suggest. He simply an agry little man with an agenda. Besides that he is a really poor on the spot debater.
None of this was an answer for your contradictions in the other post.
You said:
Bertot writes:
The reality we are looking for at present is not God, only design.
Followed by:
Bertot writes:
Nothing musive, unwarrented, theoretical or imaginary about a designer, as you have now fully admitted.
Stile did not admit anything about a "design(er)", he said theoretical there was a possibility for "design", period. You added "design(er)" to it. Even, like you said, if you proved things were designed, the design(er) would still be imaginative and unwarrented and theoretical because, as you say, design can still be caused by natural process.
Would you like to deal with those contradicting statements above or not?
Reactions of interactions to bring about a specific SAME consistent result
Same results no matter what?! Care to think that through carefully? (hint: think QM)
And could you be specific...please?
  • Does the Earth orbit the Sun because it was "designed" to do so, or is it doing so because matter found itself trapped in an orbit around the Sun?
  • Was the Earth "designed" for life, or did life arrise due to the Earth being at the precise distance from it's host Sun?
  • Was the Earth "designed" to be this far from the Sun, or is it the result of the Earths mass?
  • Was the Sun "designed" at that specific size so that it would go Red Giant and consume the Earth in the process ending all life, or is it's size the result of it's core mass/energy?
Just a few more points if you should be so kind as to indulge me:
The design principle could be a result of natural prossess as well as a designer
Could you give a brief explanation of what the "design principle" is? And how would you show design happened naturally?
The obvious design in nature and the design argument are not the all in all for belief in God or a designer, it simply coorborates what we already know through the argument from existence itself and the laws that nature follows and the fact that it appears tobe contiengent on other things, so on and so forth.
I think the point we are all making against you is that there is NO obvious design in nature. You have not shown were design is. All we see is adaptive organisms changing as per their enviromental needs. Where do you see design?
The point here is, not that you or I can demonstrate this beyond any doubt, there is always doubt, no matter the weight of evidence.
But you do not doubt that gravity exists, or atoms, or gases, or electromegnetic waves, etc. Why do we place doubt on design? Could it be that it is impossible to show?
The reactions of a designed motor vehicle with its other parts constituting interactions is design whether someone put it togoether or it happened naturally.
A motor is designed for a specific purpose. It does not adapt to different environments. It does not alter it's functions to suit new conditions. It serves one specific purpose. It clearly is designed with one application in mind.
Could you say the same about organisms who have evolved for 3.5 billion years, who have gone through thousands of morphological changes, who have continously been driven to evolve by a randomly changing environment?
What specific purpose were organisms designed for? To stay alive at all cost? Is that it? Is that what you mean by design?
How could you point to design specifics when the organism is constantly changing?
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-21-2009 9:22 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-22-2009 9:04 AM onifre has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 144 of 396 (499941)
02-21-2009 1:11 PM


Topic and Forum Guidelines Advisory
The current discussion in this thread should probably move to another thread. Possibilities are:
This thread addresses the infinite regress faced by those who believe that complexity requires a designer but ignore that this designer requires an even more complex designer who himself requires an even more complex designer...
I'd also like to note that not only is the evidence for design or for the designer not the topic, but the inadequacy of fellow debaters is never on topic in any discussion. Please focus on the position, not the person.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 145 of 396 (500033)
02-22-2009 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Stile
02-20-2009 12:07 PM


Re: Again, and again, and again
Edited by AdminModulous, : Off topic posts hidden - two Admin warnings should have been enough

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Stile, posted 02-20-2009 12:07 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 146 of 396 (500034)
02-22-2009 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by onifre
02-21-2009 11:57 AM


Re: I will give civility a try...for admins sake.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminModulous, : Off topic post hidden, press peek to see it, you may take it to a PNT or some other topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by onifre, posted 02-21-2009 11:57 AM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by AdminModulous, posted 02-22-2009 9:27 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 147 of 396 (500036)
02-22-2009 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Dawn Bertot
02-22-2009 9:04 AM


Final warning
Bertot - and anybody else too - read the admin messages that have been recently posted in this thread. Failure to do so will result in suspensions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-22-2009 9:04 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-22-2009 10:17 AM AdminModulous has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 148 of 396 (500038)
02-22-2009 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by AdminModulous
02-22-2009 9:27 AM


Re: Final warning
Admin writes:
Bertot - and anybody else too - read the admin messages that have been recently posted in this thread. Failure to do so will result in suspensions. Bertot - and anybody else too - read the admin messages that have been recently posted in this thread. Failure to do so will result in suspensions.
I dont mind moving it to another topic or thread, I however am not experienced enough in you proceedures to suggest where or whatever. I would request that maybe you bring my last two posts to Stile and Onfire out of hiding into another thread area, or whatever. Just a thought.
Or perhaps you could move all the relevant posts of late by myself, Onifre, Stile and others from that thread to another, so everyone can keep up with where we are at, is that possible.
How about the one with only 21 posts to its name, that would give us plenty time, eh?
D Bertot
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by AdminModulous, posted 02-22-2009 9:27 AM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by AdminModulous, posted 02-22-2009 10:24 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 149 of 396 (500039)
02-22-2009 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Dawn Bertot
02-22-2009 10:17 AM


Re: Final warning
Message 144 provides you with some suggestions, feel free to take a look at those threads and see if the ideas you want to post about work in any of them.
Unfortunately, I am not able to take your posts and move them to any of those threads...instead of copy/pasting them you might want to collate your general ideas and just post them as a new general reply in one of the suggested threads or post a new topic as you see fit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-22-2009 10:17 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-22-2009 10:27 AM AdminModulous has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 150 of 396 (500041)
02-22-2009 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by AdminModulous
02-22-2009 10:24 AM


Re: Final warning
Can I, since I saved them in Word, copy and Paste, the last two, and post them to the thread with only 21 posts?
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by AdminModulous, posted 02-22-2009 10:24 AM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by AdminModulous, posted 02-22-2009 10:44 AM Dawn Bertot 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