The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

I don't think you understand how infinity works.It's okay - I mean, I think I kinda understand, and I understand what Paul K is saying here.
But I know that I don't really understand how infinity works... as far as higher level maths go, anyway. It is a really weird concept.But this is lower level maths.
And if you don't understand how lower-level-maths infinity works... then you just don't understand how infinity works.Hint: It's not a "really-really big number you can eventually add enough things up and get kinda-close to."
There's no such thing as a really large number that's "getting near infinite."You're mistaking a conceptual-tool-of-learning for how-a-thing-really-is.
The stepping stool itself is not the top shelf.I know this doesn't help show you what infinity really is.
But that teaching is above my pay-grade.
All I can say is... currently... you're a swing-and-a-miss.You need to step back, reflect, and take another attempt at understanding what infinity is before moving forward in your current vein of thought.

Before I thought you just didn't know how infinity works.
But, now... I think you don't know how numbers work.Infinity is an abstract concept.
Numbers are also abstract concepts.As abstract concepts... neither is anything concrete... ever.Let's take infinity first, as you seem to agree with this one:Infinity does not exist as anything concrete... ever.
-that is, you cannot say "that is infinity!" while pointing at anything
-you can only point at something shaped like how we write infinity (our representation of the concept)
-or you can point at the concept of "an infinite number of things"... like the number of slices when always slicing the remaining distance in half between 2 apples
-but "the number of slices when always slicing the remaining distance in half between 2 apples" is merely displaying the concept of infinity, it is not a concrete existence of "infinity."
-Infinity certainly exists... as a concept
-Infinity, as a concept, can be identified in physical reality... like the number of slices when always slicing the remaining distance in half between 2 apples
-but the concept is not a "concrete thing" in and of itselfNow I'll do the same with numbers. (I'll use the number 2.)The number two does not exist as anything concrete... ever.
-that is, you cannot say "that is the number 2!" while pointing at anything
-you can only point at something shaped like how we write the number two (our representation of the concept)
-or you can point at the concept of "2 things"... like 2 apples
-but "2 apples" is merely displaying the concept of the number 2, they are not a concrete existence of "the number 2."
-The number 2 certainly exists... as a concept
-The number 2, as a concept, can be identified in physical reality... like having 2 apples
-but the concept is not a "concrete thing" in and of itselfAll numbers, including infinity are concepts.
We always describe the concept when observing concrete physical reality.What's happened here is that you are overly familiar with the concept of "2" and not overly familiar with the concept of "infinity."
You've conflated your over-familiarity with "2" into this actually being a concrete thing... but it's not, it never has been, and it never will be.
You're wrong on a simple, fundamental level.
It's easy to see, easy to explain, and easy to identify to anyone who cares to look at the situation objectively.
Your continued denial only ends up displaying additional problems with your thinking (a large ego, being deceived by others, not wanting to lose... could be a lot of things.)If you're looking for truth, you need to take a long look at what you're doing here.
Otherwise... I don't really care what you do, as in this thread I'm not concerned with people who don't care about truth.Added by Edit:
Amidst my rambling, I forgot to make my own point clear.My point is: Every time you see two objects, you are seeing "the number 2" and "infinity" in reality at the exact same level.Every time there is two objects: you can see two objects and in your mind (abstractly) count to 2.
Every time there is two objects: you can see the space between them and in your mind (abstractly) how it can be divided up in half an infinite number of times.
You never see "a concrete number 2"
You never see "a concrete infinity"The only difference is you are very familiar with "the number 2" and "counting abstractly in your mind." This familiarity does not mean "the number 2" concretely exists.
Others who are more familiar with the concept of infinity will see both, all the time... their familiarity does not mean "infinity" concretely exists.
However, both abstract concepts do very much exist in reality any time you have 2 objects or any other example where the concepts can be applied to reality.
The concepts exist, and their applications to reality exist - equally except for your own personal familiarity/credulity with them.

Edited by Stile, : Forgot to make my point clear

Seems reasonable.
I completely agree with this. I completely agree with this as well. But.. here's where things don't add up.You look at Mueller cells in the camera eye and see design or "the designed bridge" - all sorts of perfect planning and execution.
But I look at Mueller cells in the camera eye and see natural existence or "the tree fallen over the gap" - all sorts of "just good enough" and a messy execution.Do I simply know more about biology and how things evolve and how nature works than you do?This is the problem. You can't just say "I know design when I see it."
You have to say "these are the limits, and this is why the limits must be this way" and it all must be very specific and objectively connected to evidence or it simply doesn't apply to reality.If you can actually show some objective link to reality.. we can discuss that and come to an objective conclusion. There's nothing wrong with the logical form of your argument.
It's just that there's no connection to reality, so there's no reason to accept that it applies to reality. The connection to reality is right here. The rest of the logically-correct-argument is irrelvent.
You need to identify, using specific objective evidence connected to reality, the following:
-what is "sophisticated?"
-what is not "sophisticated?"
-what are the "features of design?"
-what are not the "features of design?"
-when do "sophisticated features of design" cross a threshold into being designed?
-when do they not?And the levels need to objectively shown to be valid... and can't simply be because of your lack of familiarity with how nature works.If there is any ambiguity in the answer to those questions... then, as the rest of your post shows... it basically comes down to "I know it when I see it" which is not objective... and then the foundation for your argument has no connection to reality.Without that specific objective evidence connected to reality, you may as well say:"If a sophisticated object has all the features of intelligent design, then it is purple."And go on to prove how logically sound the formulation of that argument is.
It's just as logically sound as the one you provide in Message 463.
And both have the same failure - no specific, objective evidence to connect them to reality.

I would suggest that if you require "meaning" to extend beyond this existence and into the next in order to be meaningful... then you are egotistical and without honour.And, if you allow for "meaning" to be ultimately meaningful without such a selfish requirement... then you allow the possibility of having ultimate meaning AND honour.

If you require life to be eternal just so that it can have meaning - then you are clearly egotistical and without honour.Honour is doing the right thing just because it's the right thing.
-not because someone told you to
-not because "it's eternal"Having meaning in something because it's eternal is easy - anyone can do that.Having meaning in something because it's limited is difficult.
-maybe no one else knows you did it
-maybe no one will remember you did it in 100 yearsBut if you're honourable, and do it anyway - this becomes more meaningful than a simple/easy "eternal" meaning that everyone's going to see and understand. If one is honourable, a finite life is more meaningful than any eternal life could ever hope for.

Why would you think that?Only if you need someone else around to remember what you did - only if you're egotistical.If you're able to put your ego aside, and just look at the situation, it's obvious that doing something when no one is looking/knows is more meaningful then doing it for recognition.Therefore - if this life is all there is, what we do is more meaningful - and more honourable - then if life is eternal.

It's pretty simple:

• Doing what's dishonourable and wrong, even if you want to do it, leads to negative consequences from those around you in the form of repercussive actions against you. Maybe issues with friends/family. Maybe issues with work. Maybe issues with the police.
• Depending on how wrong it is, you could end up with some very large, unavoidable consequences. Possibility of being very lonely because no one wants to be around you. Possibility of losing your job and not being able to support yourself. Possibility of going to jail or being forced to pay fines.
• Doing what's dishonourable and wrong, even if it's what you want to do, can make your life very, very difficult to live by your own choices.

These would all be selfish reasons why you should do good things - for the idea of self-preservation.

Yeah. Questions like that really are scary - if asked seriously.
I generally think people ask them because they just haven't really thought about it and "just accepted" the religious answer for whatever reason. More of an ignorance thing then a malevolent thing. But, who knows? I'm not a mind-reader.Anyway, I like Penn Jillette's phrasing when asked "...without God, what’s to stop you from raping all you want?"

quote:

---

I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine.

​

-Penn Jillette (from Penn & Teller)

---

Ha ha...If only cults were so straightforward.
I'd be more inclined to think that their involvement is more meant for them to fail - to reinforce that the "outstide, evilutionists" will never accept them and always fight them. This would lead them back into the cult - where they can be abused further.They would be given some task like "engage in conversation with 10 evolutionists" or something like that.
They would be expecting to own the evilutionists... but the task wouldn't specifically include that. Reinforcement of the "us vs. them" cult behaviour would be the goal.A despicable, and very sad thing, really.

It seems like you've responded to the wrong message.
What are you talking about?The only people I bashed are those in cults who are trying to control other people.Don't you think such people should be bashed?
I'd do even more to them, if it were allowed. Such evil should never be tolerated.

You didn't ask for a reason to make life meaningful.
You asked why would someone do good things if they wanted to do bad things.
Self-preservation is the answer to that question.A reason to make life meaningful is also easy, just different: Get Better. More meaningful?I don't know how to measure meaning between two different people... let alone different species. What scale do you suggest? Do you have a meaning-measuring tape? A meaning-laser? A set of descriptions we can agree on?Perhaps my life is not more meaningful then that of a flea.
Perhaps it is.Either way - what does it matter?
As far as meaning goes - I'm really only concerned with my own. It seems rather arrogant and controlling to worry about someone (or even something) else's meaning.I can, however, measure meaning within myself. I can feel how meaningful it is.
Following someone else's meaning for me is, well, half-hearted at best. As it's not what I would like to do. But if I do what I like to do... helping others and learning to grow and get better, following love... then I'm full of meaning. More meaning then I've ever heard of described by any other person or book or movie.