Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9078 total)
144 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1 (2 members, 142 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 894,973 Year: 6,085/6,534 Month: 278/650 Week: 48/278 Day: 48/27 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   is there any case for Intelligent design in man made products
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 72 (653807)
02-24-2012 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbm111
02-24-2012 6:46 AM


Hence if we follow this argument to its logical conclusion we are forced to accept that intelligence in any form is a fanciful and unnecessary concept.

No we're not.

We are foolish to invoke an intelligent designer in any circumstances whatsoever whether talking about the natural world or other human beings.

We are foolish to settle on the least evidenced explanation when there are other explanations with more evidence and more explanatory power.

It has nothing to do with natural and not natural. We prefer the better explanation, that's all.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 6:46 AM lbm111 has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 72 (653846)
02-24-2012 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by lbm111
02-24-2012 6:53 PM


Stop playing word games and get to the point.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 6:53 PM lbm111 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 5:21 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 72 (653889)
02-25-2012 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by lbm111
02-25-2012 5:21 AM


Damnit! You broke my Bullshit Meter
My point is that we can never observe "intelligence" only the result of it

This is bullshit on so many levels. Here's two of them:

First, we can experience intelligence, i.e., our own. So you are 100% incorrect when you claim we cannot observe intelligence. I am experiencing my own intelligence right now.

Second, by your logic we'd have to say that gravity isn't a real thing because we only know of it by its result: stuff crashing together.

By your logic we'd have to say that hunger doesn't exist because we only know of it by its result: things eat once in a while and die if they don't.

Yet, almost everything known in science is known indirectly based on the affect it has over its surrounding environment.

Thus, we can observe intelligence and even when we cannot, indirect observation is just as good as direct observation.

Is there any reason we should throw this all away just for your silly pet theory?

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 5:21 AM lbm111 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022