Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
28 online now:
Diomedes, DrJones*, RAZD, vimesey (4 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,485 Year: 18,521/19,786 Month: 941/1,705 Week: 193/518 Day: 17/50 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   too intelligent to actually be intelligent?
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 304 (391766)
03-27-2007 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by GDR
03-27-2007 10:06 AM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
There remains though a basic disagreement about what constitutes evidence, let alone how to interpret it.

Yet, somehow, we're able to come to agreement in the sciences. Occam's Razor, for instance, is a basic tool that informs us how to interpret evidence. It informs us that the most parsimonious explanation that the evidence supports is the preferred one.

I don't really see a disagreement about "what constitutes evidence." I see you persistently dodging the question of evidence by asserting "I have all this evidence but I'm not going to share it with you because you wouldn't believe me." It's getting a little transparent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 10:06 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 11:39 AM crashfrog has responded

Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 287 of 304 (391767)
03-27-2007 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by nator
03-23-2007 9:02 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
quote:
CF+Nator writes:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"if a red dragon fought a mind flayer sorcerer, who would win?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it is an ancient red dragon, my money's on her.

Would'nt even have to be ancient: red dragon's Will save is through the roof.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by nator, posted 03-23-2007 9:02 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 11:36 AM Larni has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 288 of 304 (391776)
03-27-2007 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Larni
03-27-2007 10:45 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
Would'nt even have to be ancient: red dragon's Will save is through the roof.

I should have probably specified equivalent Challenge Ratings; that would suggest perhaps a mature adult red dragon (CR 17) and a mind flayer with 9 levels of sorcerer (9+8 = 17).

You're right that the Will save on the dragon is just slightly higher than the DC of the flayer's mind blast attack. But 9 levels of sorcerer give pretty substantial benefits. I'd use animate dead and summon monster IV to outnumber the dragon and provide flanking benefits from monsters immune to the dragon's fear aura. I'd use greater invisibility and fly to sneak up to the dragon's cranium, and haste and true strike spells to make grapple checks to apply my mouth tentacles.

Once I had four, game over. There's no save for brain extraction. Man, a mature red dragon brain? I'd be full for weeks!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Larni, posted 03-27-2007 10:45 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Larni, posted 03-28-2007 3:28 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

GDR
Member
Posts: 4983
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 289 of 304 (391777)
03-27-2007 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by crashfrog
03-27-2007 10:33 AM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
Thanks for the information on biological evolution. As I said to nator I'll have to do some more reading, but that was really helpful.

crashfrog writes:

I don't really see a disagreement about "what constitutes evidence." I see you persistently dodging the question of evidence by asserting "I have all this evidence but I'm not going to share it with you because you wouldn't believe me." It's getting a little transparent.

I'll just re-post what I posted earlier in this thread. I see it as evidence and obviously you can make up your own mind whether it is or isn't.

See -- nothing up my sleeve. :)

Because there is something rather than nothing.
Because of the complexity of all life.
Because of the complexity of our world and the universe.
Because I have consciousness.
Because I have self awareness.
Because we have a moral code.
Because love exists.
Etc.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 10:33 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 11:41 AM GDR has responded
 Message 294 by Parasomnium, posted 03-27-2007 6:13 PM GDR has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 290 of 304 (391779)
03-27-2007 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by GDR
03-27-2007 11:39 AM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
See -- nothing up my sleeve.

If we know that all of those things have simpler explanations than "a divine deity", then what's reasonable about ascribing those things to God?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 11:39 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 4:06 PM crashfrog has responded

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3805 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 291 of 304 (391783)
03-27-2007 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by ICdesign
03-26-2007 4:52 PM


Re: either way- you lose
have grown away from a selfish way of
thinking and tried to learn to put others before myself.
I have reasons to be a giver and to be honest. I have
reasons to not waist my life getting drunk and using drugs.
I have reasons to live a loving and moral life.
More power to you then. But don't forget that some of us may find other ways to lead honest fulfilling productive lives. ways that do not include faith...

My point is this:
What do you win if you are right? Might as well live with all
the gusto and self-indulgence you can cause when its over-
its over.
True, and I think I'll indulge myself with some honest and moral behaviour, just bacause that's what floats my boat, eventhough I have no faith to speak of.

PUTTING YOUR FAITH IN DARWIN: Either you die and thats it-
or when you die you get thrown into the lake of fire.
I fail to see a long term up side.
This is why I say "either way you lose."
That's a false dicotomy. There are other possibilities. What if there is a god out there that cares about intelectual integrity and which will save only those that did the right thing for the right reasons, but not those that did it for the wrong reasons (It might be reasonable to include the "fear of the lake of fire" in the second category, since it is ultimately a selfish reason to do something)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by ICdesign, posted 03-26-2007 4:52 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

GDR
Member
Posts: 4983
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 292 of 304 (391820)
03-27-2007 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by crashfrog
03-27-2007 11:41 AM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
crashfrog writes:

If we know that all of those things have simpler explanations than "a divine deity", then what's reasonable about ascribing those things to God?

What are the simpler explanations?


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 11:41 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 4:10 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 293 of 304 (391823)
03-27-2007 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by GDR
03-27-2007 4:06 PM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
The scientific, natural explanations. I don't see how discussing their details could be on-topic.

Shraf has asked you twice if you'd like to participate on a topic about the natural, biological causes of emotions. If that's something you suddenly want to talk about I suggest you take her up on her kind offer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 4:06 PM GDR has not yet responded

Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 981 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 294 of 304 (391852)
03-27-2007 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by GDR
03-27-2007 11:39 AM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
GDR,

In response to my Message 280 you write:

There remains though a basic disagreement about what constitutes evidence, let alone how to interpret it.

And in your reply to Crashfrog's Message 286 you present what you consider evidence (for the existence of God, I presume):

Because there is something rather than nothing.
Because of the complexity of all life.
Because of the complexity of our world and the universe.
Because I have consciousness.
Because I have self awareness.
Because we have a moral code.
Because love exists.
Etc.

First of all, to me your evidence seems like nothing more than a list expressing your personal incredulity - no disrespect intended. It doesn't really explain anything. The evidence I would like to see should be able to explain the how of things. Random mutation and natural selection provide just that: a mechanism. And this mechanism is corroborated by many different kinds of evidence, from such diverse scientific disciplines as molecular genetics, to comparative anatomy and morphology, to biogeography, all of which provide insight into how evolution works. It all fits together.

Your evidence, on the other hand, amounts to little more than: "There is something rather than nothing, therefore God must exist", or "All life is complex, therefore God must exist". What if God was someone who likes things simple? Surely, the complexity of life would then be an argument against him, wouldn't it? Shouldn't we know more about God from a different source before we pronounce him the cause of all this complexity?

Second, your evidence is not necessarily evidence of God. It could be that there is something rather than nothing because of a natural law that we don't know about. It could be that life is complex because it was created by a race of alien pranksters, just because they like complicated things. Or it could be that life is complex because random mutation and natural selection are guaranteed to create ever more complex structures. How is anything you mentioned evidence for your God, and not someone else's?

There's nothing up your sleeve, indeed. But you've got nothing on the table either.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 11:39 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 6:57 PM Parasomnium has not yet responded
 Message 296 by ringo, posted 03-27-2007 6:59 PM Parasomnium has not yet responded

GDR
Member
Posts: 4983
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 295 of 304 (391858)
03-27-2007 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Parasomnium
03-27-2007 6:13 PM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
Parasomnium writes:

First of all, to me your evidence seems like nothing more than a list expressing your personal incredulity - no disrespect intended. It doesn't really explain anything. The evidence I would like to see should be able to explain the how of things. Random mutation and natural selection provide just that: a mechanism. And this mechanism is corroborated by many different kinds of evidence, from such diverse scientific disciplines as molecular genetics, to comparative anatomy and morphology, to biogeography, all of which provide insight into how evolution works. It all fits together.

I'm not discussing the "hows" but the "whys". As I have said numerous times I have no problem with biology or evolution. I have questions about random mutation but frankly, I'm quite sure that if I actually understood the process better I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. The view that I hold is compatible with all that science teaches of the natural world.

Parasomnium writes:

Your evidence, on the other hand, amounts to little more than: "There is something rather than nothing, therefore God must exist", or "All life is complex, therefore God must exist". What if God was someone who likes things simple? Surely, the complexity of life would then be an argument against him, wouldn't it? Shouldn't we know more about God from a different source before we pronounce him the cause of all this complexity?

You could be right. In my view, I am convinced that the most reasonable conclusion is that we are designed by an intelligent designer.

Parasomnium writes:

Second, your evidence is not necessarily evidence of God. It could be that there is something rather than nothing because of a natural law that we don't know about. It could be that life is complex because it was created by a race of alien pranksters, just because they like complicated things. Or it could be that life is complex because random mutation and natural selection are guaranteed to create ever more complex structures.

I suppose it's all possible but all we can do is take all these things into account and come to what we believe is the most reasonable conclusion. We are trying to sort out ideas that can't be tested in a lab or verified mathematically.

Parasomnium writes:

How is anything you mentioned evidence for your God, and not someone else's?

This discussion is about ID, (not the ID movement), and not about a specific faith. It would be consistent with any faith that agrees that we are created by an IDer.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Parasomnium, posted 03-27-2007 6:13 PM Parasomnium has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by nator, posted 03-27-2007 9:10 PM GDR has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17403
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 296 of 304 (391859)
03-27-2007 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Parasomnium
03-27-2007 6:13 PM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
Parasomnium writes:

It could be that life is complex because it was created by a race of alien pranksters, just because they like complicated things.

The Rube GoldBorgs?


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Parasomnium, posted 03-27-2007 6:13 PM Parasomnium has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 454 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 297 of 304 (391883)
03-27-2007 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by GDR
03-27-2007 6:57 PM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
This statement:

quote:
As I have said numerous times I have no problem with biology or evolution.

And this statement:

quote:
In my view, I am convinced that the most reasonable conclusion is that we are designed by an intelligent designer.

...are not compatible at all.

And this statement:

quote:
The view that I hold is compatible with all that science teaches of the natural world.

...is clearly not true at all.

You claim the existence of human emotion as some sort of evidence for your IDer, clearly assuming that science has no clue how or why they exist.

Like I mentioned several times already, this is far from the reality of current research. Again, if you would like to start a thread to discuss the science, I'd be happy to contribute. I might even be able to get my Cognitive Psychologist husband to participate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 6:57 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 10:00 PM nator has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4983
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 298 of 304 (391890)
03-27-2007 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by nator
03-27-2007 9:10 PM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
I agree I'm no scientist so once again lets see what one who is has to say. The first part of this I quoted earlier.
Francis Collins writes:

Francis Collins writes:
There are many subtle variations of theistic evolution, but a typical version rest upon the following premises:

1. The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago.
2. Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over long periods of time.
4. Once evolution got underway, no special supernatural intervention was required.
5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
6. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.

If one accepts these six premises, then an entirely plausible, intellectually satisfying, and logically consistent synthesis emerges: God, who is not limited in space or time, created the universe and established natural laws that govern it. Seeking to populate this otherwise sterile universe with living creatures, God chose the elegant mechanism of evolution to create microbes, plants, and animals of all sorts. Most remarkably, God intentionally chose the same mechanism to give rise to special creatures who would have intelligence, a knowledge of right and wrong, free will, and a desire to seek fellowship with Him. He also knew these creatures would ultimately choose to disobey the Moral Law.

This view is entirely compatible with everything that science teaches us about the natural world. It is also entirely compatible with the great monotheistic religions of the world. The theistic evolution perspective cannot, of course, prove that God is real, as no logical argument can fully achieve that. Belief in God will always require a leap of faith. But this synthesis has provided for legions of scientist-believers a satisfying, consistent, enriching perspective that allows both the scientific and spiritual worldviews to coexist happily within us.

Here is a portion of his biography from wiki:

Raised on a small farm in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley, Francis Sellers Collins was home-schooled by his mother until the sixth grade. Throughout most of his high school and college years, the aspiring chemist had little interest in what he then considered the "messy" field of biology. What he refers to as his "formative education" was received at the University of Virginia, where he earned a B.S. in Chemistry in 1970. He went on to attain a Ph.D. in physical chemistry at Yale University in 1974. While at Yale, however, a course in biochemistry sparked his interest in the molecules that hold the blueprint for life: DNA and RNA. Collins recognized that a revolution was on the horizon in molecular biology and genetics. After consulting with his old mentor from the University of Virginia, Carl Trindle, he changed fields and enrolled in medical school at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, earning there an M.D. in 1977.

From 1978 to 1981, Collins served a residency and chief residency in internal medicine at North Carolina Memorial Hospital in Chapel Hill. He then returned to Yale, where he was named a Fellow in Human Genetics at the medical school from 1981 to 1984. During that time, he developed innovative methods of crossing large stretches of DNA to identify disease genes.

After joining the University of Michigan in 1984 in a position that would eventually lead to a Professorship of Internal Medicine and Human Genetics, Collins heightened his reputation as a relentless gene hunter. That gene-hunting approach, which he named "positional cloning," has developed into a powerful component of modern molecular genetics.

I repeat that I believe that my view is consistent with Collin’s views and he contends that his views are not contrary to the scientific view.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by nator, posted 03-27-2007 9:10 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 10:25 PM GDR has responded
 Message 301 by sidelined, posted 03-27-2007 11:26 PM GDR has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 299 of 304 (391893)
03-27-2007 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by GDR
03-27-2007 10:00 PM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
Making up the answer to a question, instead of being guided by the evidence, is never consistent with the scientific method. You should know that Collins's views have been rebutted by a number of other thinkers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 10:00 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 10:54 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

GDR
Member
Posts: 4983
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 300 of 304 (391895)
03-27-2007 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by crashfrog
03-27-2007 10:25 PM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
crashfrog writes:

You should know that Collins's views have been rebutted by a number of other thinkers.

Of course. People's theological views are all over the map. Nator is saying that my views clash with science. I agree that I'm not qualified to argue that point so I went to someone who is.

There are many others that agree with Collins as well. This is from wiki.

Contemporary biologists and geologists who are Christians and evolutionary creationists include

Kenneth R. Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, author of Finding Darwin's God (Cliff Street Books, 1999), in which he states his belief in God and argues that "evolution is the key to understanding God." Dr. Miller has also called himself "an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox Darwinist" (the 2001 PBS special "Evolution").
Derek Burke, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Warwick
R. J. Berry, Professor of Genetics at University College London
evangelical Christian and geologist Keith B. Miller (no relation to Kenneth) of Kansas State University, who compiled an anthology Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (Eerdmans, 2003)
biologist Denis Lamoureux of St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta, Canada who has co-authored with evolution critic Phillip E. Johnson Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins (Regent College, 1999)
biologist Darrel Falk of Point Loma Nazarene University, author of Coming to Peace with Science
biologist Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief
paleontologist Robert T. Bakker
microbiologist Richard G. Colling of Olivet Nazarene University, author of Random Designer: Created from Chaos to Connect with Creator
paleobiologist Prof. Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University, well known for his groundbreaking work on the Burgess Shale fossils and the Cambrian explosion, and author of Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe

Here is a link to the wiki site on Theistic Evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 10:25 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019