Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8926 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2019 8:49 PM
32 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, jar, JonF, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (9 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,200 Year: 15,236/19,786 Month: 1,959/3,058 Week: 333/404 Day: 51/96 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
19Next
Author Topic:   The $5,000,000 ID Research Challenge
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12683
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 166 of 285 (687695)
01-15-2013 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Straggler
01-15-2013 1:00 PM


Re: Hypotheticals
Watch this hypothetical argument and tell me what you think, Straggie.


Inside & Outside- Broadcast your self LIVE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Straggler, posted 01-15-2013 1:00 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Straggler, posted 01-15-2013 1:21 PM Thugpreacha has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 167 of 285 (687697)
01-15-2013 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Thugpreacha
01-15-2013 1:02 PM


Re: Hypotheticals
Phat writes:

1) Preaching is not easier than debating because in order to preach you have to listen to the Spirit...you cant just go off on your own intellect and opinion.

Why is it is possible to "listen to the Spirit" in such a way that the ability to preach transcends "your own intellect and opinion" but not possible to "listen to the spirit" and similarly overcome the restrictions imposed by one's intellect and opinion when it comes to anything remotely useful or testable?

Phat writes:

Watch this hypothetical argument and tell me what you think, Straggie.

Well I think it's a deeply flawed position on the problem of evil that has little relevance to this topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-15-2013 1:02 PM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-15-2013 2:14 PM Straggler has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12683
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 168 of 285 (687701)
01-15-2013 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Straggler
01-15-2013 1:21 PM


Re: Hypotheticals
Taq writes:

That is the challenge for this thread. Show us what the ID research program would actually need to do, what equipment would be needed to do this research, and how you would prioritize the money in this laboratory. Show us what a real ID research program would look like.

Now mind you, this money is not to be spent testing evolution. It is meant to study ID, not evolution. Any experiments that test evolution will not meet the guidelines set out in the challenge.

How does one study intelligent design apart from studying intelligence itself? My basic take on all of this is that intelligence is determined through a spiritual flow.
Taq writes:

What we are actually interested in is if life on Earth was produced by an intelligence in the past.

And I would maintain that such an intelligence exists and is past, present and future intelligence.
Ringo writes:

But I think ID'ists are far from conceding that it could happen. Their desired outcome is that intelligence is necessary but our intelligence is insufficient.

And I would agree that our intelligence is insufficient...at least as far as creating anything much bigger than the Panama Canal or a super collidor.

Straggler writes:

hypothetically a hypothetical human could obtain as much knowledge as a hypothetical creator.

I think you are either overestimating hypothetical humans ability to create or you are underestimating the power...never mind possibility...of a hypothetical Designer apart from humanity.

Straggler writes:

Well why don't we test this belief in divine wisdom? That could form the basis for a research project could it not?

Let's take someone who believes that they are in communication with the divine (e.g. yourself apparently) and see whether they can demonstrate the validity of this belief by extracting some knowledge from the divine that it would otherwise not be possible for a mere human to have access to.

I never said that you or anyone else could not have access to the concept of such knowledge. I only claim that you would not know how to use it. A Designer would. (hypothetically, of course. )

Straggler, responding to my video writes:

Well I think it's a deeply flawed position on the problem of evil that has little relevance to this topic.

I disagree. The intellect without acknowledgement of a Designer is outside of communion. The intellect that acknowledges the possibility of a Designer is in communion. Problem?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Straggler, posted 01-15-2013 1:21 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Straggler, posted 01-16-2013 9:38 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply
 Message 174 by Genomicus, posted 01-16-2013 9:55 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 169 of 285 (687711)
01-15-2013 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Thugpreacha
01-15-2013 12:16 PM


Re: Sigh.
1) Preaching is not easier than debating because in order to preach you have to listen to the Spirit...you cant just go off on your own intellect and opinion.

In my experience, preaching is based on an appeal to wishes and emotions. Preaching is only effective if you ignore both reason an logic. It isn't about listening to a spirit. It is about ignoring reason and going with what makes you feel good.

And that is really what we have with the ID movement. It isn't about finding a logical or reasoned argument. It is about defending a belief that you are already emotionally invested in from logic and reason.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-15-2013 12:16 PM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-15-2013 3:59 PM Taq has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12683
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 170 of 285 (687714)
01-15-2013 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Taq
01-15-2013 3:26 PM


Logic and Reason
It is about defending a belief that you are already emotionally invested in from logic and reason.
That assumes that logic and reason rule God out. In my experience they don't.

I will admit, however, that the scientific method has served us well in explaining unexplainable things, whereas religious dogma has historically done poorly.

Not that I dont believe spirituality CANT explain reality, mind you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Taq, posted 01-15-2013 3:26 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Taq, posted 01-15-2013 4:29 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 171 of 285 (687717)
01-15-2013 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Thugpreacha
01-15-2013 3:59 PM


Re: Logic and Reason
That assumes that logic and reason rule God out. In my experience they don't.

If you use logic and reason how would you ever come to the conclusion that God does exist? Think of Russel's Teapot as a non-theological example of what I am talking about.

Why do people believe that this universe was created for them by a loving deity that cares about their day to day struggles? Because it makes them feel better. That is what preaching is, playing to those emotions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-15-2013 3:59 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4415
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 172 of 285 (687718)
01-15-2013 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by tesla
01-14-2013 7:32 PM


Re: the answer.
I'm proposing more funding, and to also put such science under the funding topics of "search for God' and Hunt for greater being and intelligence'.

A lot of the problem in this dicussion is the total lack of specificity.

Let's get specific. A real life example.

Are you familiar with SETI (Search for Extraterrestial Intellegence)?

The SETI Institute has a number of missions one of which is to build and man radio telescope arrays that search for intellegent signals in space. They scan thousands of frequencies and analyse the data looking for these signals. It is a non-profit science organization and thus seeks science grants (and personal donations) from funding organzations, governmental, corporate and private.

If I'm reading you correctly, you are proposing that SETI also approach churches and other religious organizations for their funding. In order to do that you are suggesting they give their reasons and motivations as "searching for God", yes?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by tesla, posted 01-14-2013 7:32 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by tesla, posted 01-23-2013 9:49 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 173 of 285 (687743)
01-16-2013 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Thugpreacha
01-15-2013 2:14 PM


Re: Hypotheticals
Phat writes:

How does one study intelligent design apart from studying intelligence itself?

But that is precisely what I am proposing be researched. You have claimed that preaching requires access to something beyond one's "own intellect and opinion".

I am suggesting that if you can communicate with this intelligent being such that you are able to transcend your "own intellect and opinion" then rather than merely preaching why not apply this ability in such a way as to conclusively demonstrates that you can actually transcend your "own intellect and opinion".

Why not use this ability of yours to reveal a testable truth that your intellect and opinion could not possibly have arrived at? This would give far more objective credence to claims of communicating with the "divine" than any amount of preaching wouldn't it?

Straggler writes:

hypothetically a hypothetical human could obtain as much knowledge as a hypothetical creator.

Phat writes:

I think you are either overestimating hypothetical humans ability to create or you are underestimating the power...never mind possibility...of a hypothetical Designer apart from humanity.

Why are hypothetical humans any more (or less) limited than hypothetical creators?

Phat writes:

The intellect without acknowledgement of a Designer is outside of communion. The intellect that acknowledges the possibility of a Designer is in communion. Problem?

Well as an initial problem that leaves someone who acknowledges the philosophical possibility of a creator but who sees no reason to think such a thing actually exists in some sort of communion limbo.

But if you are genuinely in communion with some sort of superior being why not demonstrate this ability of yours in a testable way (e.g. that described above)?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-15-2013 2:14 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 170 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 174 of 285 (687747)
01-16-2013 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Thugpreacha
01-15-2013 2:14 PM


Re: Hypotheticals
But I think IDists are far from conceding that it could happen. Their desired outcome is that intelligence is necessary but our intelligence is insufficient. Any research they did would be shooting themselves in the foot.

And:

And I would agree that our intelligence is insufficient...at least as far as creating anything much bigger than the Panama Canal or a super collidor.

Of course, we are rapidly approaching the day where human intelligence will be able to create synthetic life. See, e.g., Rasmussen et al., 2003.
This is not a problem for ID (unless one has a religious agenda). If anything, it adds support to the plausibility of the notion that an intelligent civilization somewhere in the universe could have designed biological life. Naturally, the origin of life is a historical question, and not merely a question about plausibility. So we must not only establish the plausibility of the intelligent design of life, but also provide evidence for that view. But, hey, a whole bunch of the evidence that supports the RNA world hypothesis merely supports its plausibility. For example, observations which demonstrate that RNA can catalyze its own replication say nothing about whether self-replicating RNA was indeed the precursor to modern cellular life.

Reference
Steen Rasmussen, Liaohai Chen, Martin Nilsson, Shigeaki Abe, 2003. Bridging Nonliving and Living Matter. Artificial Life, 9(3): 269-316.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-15-2013 2:14 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2286 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 175 of 285 (688511)
01-23-2013 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Tangle
01-14-2013 7:42 PM


Re: Sigh.
it's easier to preach than debate.

Ignoring the content of a person’s text or speech is not debate. It’s avoiding the debate and then calling it debate.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Tangle, posted 01-14-2013 7:42 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2286 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


(1)
Message 176 of 285 (688513)
01-23-2013 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Taq
01-14-2013 8:02 PM


Re: the answer.
When scientists had questions about the God particle they didn't build a spaceship. They built the LHC. Notice a difference?

Yes. The difference is they were not seeking higher consciousness. They were seeking a base particle.

You ignored everything I said, or failed to comprehend the importance of what I'm pointing out. I'll ask again:

I'm proposing more funding, and to also put such science under the funding topics of "search for God' and Hunt for greater being and intelligence'.

I'm saying let the religious fund real God seeking and less Indoctrinating, but so far no one here seems to get it. Do YOU get that? Or am I wasting more time on useless candor?


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Taq, posted 01-14-2013 8:02 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Taq, posted 01-23-2013 1:45 PM tesla has responded
 Message 198 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2013 8:04 PM tesla has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2286 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 177 of 285 (688515)
01-23-2013 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by ringo
01-15-2013 11:44 AM


Re: Chicken or the Egg?
So what you're saying is that we "aren't ready yet" to do any research into ID. You're affirming that ID is not science; in fact, it's only specualtion that ID might possibly some day become science.
I think most people would agree with that assessment - and it explains why there are no research grants for ID.

No.

What I'm saying is there is no magical science of I.D.

I.D. is the chapter of science that includes the acceptance of the potential of God, and wishes to seek God through legitimate science. The legitimate science I have already proposed, that you wish to disregard because it is not 'magical enough' to fit your definition of what I.D. science is to you.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by ringo, posted 01-15-2013 11:44 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Genomicus, posted 01-23-2013 9:53 AM tesla has responded
 Message 180 by ringo, posted 01-23-2013 12:10 PM tesla has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2286 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 178 of 285 (688516)
01-23-2013 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by AZPaul3
01-15-2013 5:18 PM


Re: the answer.
A lot of the problem in this dicussion is the total lack of specificity.

Let's get specific. A real life example.

Are you familiar with SETI (Search for Extraterrestial Intellegence)?

The SETI Institute has a number of missions one of which is to build and man radio telescope arrays that search for intellegent signals in space. They scan thousands of frequencies and analyse the data looking for these signals. It is a non-profit science organization and thus seeks science grants (and personal donations) from funding organzations, governmental, corporate and private.

If I'm reading you correctly, you are proposing that SETI also approach churches and other religious organizations for their funding. In order to do that you are suggesting they give their reasons and motivations as "searching for God", yes?

Finally getting close!!!

The answer is both yes and no. No, because the religious will not directly fund S.E.T.I.

Yes, because indirectly, through an I.D. hub, they would.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by AZPaul3, posted 01-15-2013 5:18 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by AZPaul3, posted 01-23-2013 8:41 PM tesla has responded

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 170 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 179 of 285 (688517)
01-23-2013 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by tesla
01-23-2013 9:47 AM


Re: Chicken or the Egg?
What I'm saying is there is no magical science of I.D.

I.D. is the chapter of science that includes the acceptance of the potential of God, and wishes to seek God through legitimate science.

No, ID is the proposal that life on earth was designed by some intelligence or intelligences. It has nothing to do with gods.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by tesla, posted 01-23-2013 9:47 AM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by tesla, posted 01-23-2013 1:10 PM Genomicus has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17152
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 180 of 285 (688530)
01-23-2013 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by tesla
01-23-2013 9:47 AM


Re: Chicken or the Egg?
tesla writes:

I.D. is the chapter of science that includes the acceptance of the potential of God, and wishes to seek God through legitimate science.


That sounds OK to me.

tesla writes:

The legitimate science I have already proposed, that you wish to disregard because it is not 'magical enough' to fit your definition of what I.D. science is to you.


You seem to be thinking of somebody else. What I've been asking you is how your proposed research would point to God. Would your "God detector" be able to distinguish between, say, a god and a technologically-advanced alien lifeform?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by tesla, posted 01-23-2013 9:47 AM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by tesla, posted 01-23-2013 1:22 PM ringo has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
19Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019