Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

We weren't talking about the "true nature of the reality of existence."

I suspect you were talking about it more than you suppose. But let's leave that for now.

Quote:

I, at least, was talking about the comparative strengths of the empirical and logical approach to epistemology vs the mythological one. Observation and necessary inference vs appeals to authority and tradition. I've been asking him to produce a hypothesis to rival the scientific one(s), but he's been stubbornly evasive.

You mean he is saying, "I do not know?"

Hell of a lot of nerve for him to say that, right????

In any case, the "scientific cosmological model' is as much a "mythological" one as the theist guesses. But I have been following this conversation for some time now, and I do not actually hear Herald arguing from the theistic side. He has indicated that he does not know (you two are in agreement there)...and he quite correctly observes that your question "How did the universe come to be?"...ILLOGICALLY assumes that it came into being.

I would have answered your question the same way he did...and I can assure you I am not coming from a theistic position. Nor would I accept that I am evading the issue.

Quote:

This isn't even about ultimate knowledge. For me, anyway. I have no idea what it's about for Herod because he refuses to state a positive thesis.

ASIDE OBSERVATION: Using Herod rather than Herald undermines your position here, FBM.

Anyway, as difficult as it may seem...saying "I do not know and I refuse to speculate"...IS NOT refusing to state a positive thesis.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, since you've been following this thread, I challenge you to go back and count the logical fallacies that Herod has based his arguments upon.

Consider, for example, the amount of sense this exchange makes:

FBM wrote:

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
What explanation for the existence of the universe do you promote?
... to study more seriously the assumptions in the first place and to leave it open for studies and investigation, because some fake explanation of the world may impede some other sustainable theories to break through.

And what hint do you derive from this:

Quote:

Who knows, some day you may discover some methodological instructions by the primary intelligence of the universe ... to the assignees ... and to start understanding the question 'Are all people children of God', for example.

Neither of us is stupid, Frank. A blind man could see what he's driving at. I'm just trying to goad him into having the courage to openly state his belief. His position is NOT "I don't know." So far, he's been playing the coward. He's willing to snipe at the scientific approach, but hiding his own belief from scrutiny in fear that it will be revealed as a house of cards. At some point, both players have to reveal their cards. I've done so and he's waffling interminably. He needs to man up and lay his cards on the table.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Herald does not 'refuse to speculate'. He just speculates a plenty that a particular interpretation of the dvidence (big bang) is false, but he cannot offer any other alternative explanation for same evidence... His case would be much stronger if he had one. But more importantly, doubting without contributing new, useful ideas, is a trademark of hyper-skeptics, and an important one because it makes their position more evasive but also much less useful. Hyper-skeptic diatribes and disputes never produce new knowledge. They are sterile, contrary to bona fide scientific arguments.

Eg you can compare the extent of our knowledge of the historicicity of Jesus in 1920 and now, and find no significant difference at all. Almost one century of doubting has not produced one single new piece of positive knowledge, because IT WAS NOT MEANT TO produce knowledge. It was only meant to spread doubt.

Similarly, Herald is not interested in proposing or testing a new view here (or even an old one), he only cares to spread doubt about the big bang, which bugs him for some reason. And FBM rightly points to that his lack of an alternate theory.

1 Reply

Herald wrote:

Portal Star wrote:
I intend to prove that agnostic is the only logical religious viewpoint.
     It should be 'the only logical viewpoint' not only of the religion, but of science as well.
     What is the difference between belief in the Big Bang, belief in the Evolution that is just happening ... and believe in an ID as creator of the things?

Portal Star wrote:
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
     Belief in an ID and the belief in the falseness of the Big Bang theory and the creation ... and ruling abilities of the Evolution 'theory', are very different things. If I believe in an ID this does not necessarily mean that ID is the creator and ruler of the Universe, for this ID may be an agent and representative of the actual creator and ruler ... not to speak that such 'creator and ruler' of the Universe may not exist at all, or the Creator might be one, and the Ruler might be another ... subject.

Portal Star wrote:
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
     Why do you think that this impossibility of get-knowing does not apply also to the Big Bang and the Evolution 'theories'?

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

And to think that I had you on Ignore for so long.

1 Reply

@FBM,

That's only a temporary set back. I'll get back on your iggy list before long.

1 Reply

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/a1ZVrjR_700b.jpg

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

That's only a temporary set back. I'll get back on your iggy list before long.

YOU'LL HAVE TO START POSTING IN ALL-CAPS AND HUGE FONT TO DO THAT. I DON'T TOLERATE BEING YELLED AT, BUT BEING DISAGREED WITH IS FINE!!!!!1!!!UNO!!!

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Frank, since you've been following this thread, I challenge you to go back and count the logical fallacies that Herod has based his arguments upon.

Consider, for example, the amount of sense this exchange makes:

FBM wrote:

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
What explanation for the existence of the universe do you promote?
... to study more seriously the assumptions in the first place and to leave it open for studies and investigation, because some fake explanation of the world may impede some other sustainable theories to break through.

And what hint do you derive from this:

Quote:
Who knows, some day you may discover some methodological instructions by the primary intelligence of the universe ... to the assignees ... and to start understanding the question 'Are all people children of God', for example.

There is no doubt whatever that Herald is inconsistent...and occasionally indulges in logical fallacies. I've disagreed with him much more often than I have agreed.

But so what?

The essence of what he has been saying recently in this thread (and what you have been saying also)...is "I do not know."

For you to suppose, however, that the "scientific cosmological model" is closer to the REALITY (or can arrive at the REALITY better) than what you term mythological approach...is also illogical.

We do not know what the truth is...and the fact that "science" is investigating things to determine the truth...is damn near a joke. Scientists...and people who espouse the scientific method...think absolutely nothing of arbitrarily writing off the notion that what we call "the universe" is not a product of a GOD.

But that is one of the possibilities, right?

Quote:

Neither of us is stupid, Frank. A blind man could see what he's driving at.

As you said earlier, he is not the best nor strongest advocate for what I am supposing his position to be.

That is one of the reasons I am speaking up...as I have in the past on the issue at hand in this thread.

The unassailable truth is...IF there is the possibility of a GOD...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

Quote:

I'm just trying to goad him into having the courage to openly state his belief. His position is NOT "I don't know." So far, he's been playing the coward. He's willing to snipe at the scientific approach, but hiding his own belief from scrutiny in fear that it will be revealed as a house of cards. At some point, both players have to reveal their cards. I've done so and he's waffling interminably. He needs to man up and lay his cards on the table.

Okay...I will acknowledge that I cannot speak for him. But I can for myself.

You say you have revealed your cards.

I still am not completely sure of what cards you hold...but there is one way to resolve this.

Tell me what part of "IF there is the possibility of a GOD...there is the possibility of intelligent design"...

...that you disagree with.

We can take it from there...work our way to the other elements still in play.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

You seem to be trying to drag my epistemological postion into an ontological one, to which I have never pledged allegiance. My position is simple. There is the tentative scientific cosmology based on direct observation and necessary inference. Speculation is readily identified as such and not offered up as certainty.

The creationist position, as disingenuously defended by Herod, is that an invisible, magical, unknowable entity created everthing (except itself, which is somehow not included in "everything"). All I've been asking for is an equivalent amount of credible evidence. How does the creationist hypothesis explain the various observable phenomena such as red shift, cosmic background radiation, consistencies in DNA among species, etc etc? All I'm asking for is an equally robust hypothesis, and I'll give it the time of day. As long as it has no empirical support, I feel justified in deeming it lacking. Herod has been flaccid in this particular thread with regards to stating a positive hypothesis, so I can't even say that I disagree with whatever he's trying to propose, since he won't even openly propose it.

One thing that is VERY clear is that his position isn't, "I don't know."

0 Replies

@FBM,

I never shout, and i doubt that shouting was the reason i got on your iggy list before. I only use caps as an EMPHASIS mode, because they are easier to use than the italic or underline codes.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I never shout, and i doubt that shouting was the reason i got on your iggy list before. I only use caps as an EMPHASIS mode, because they are easier to use than the italic or underline codes.

OK, at this point I could either

a) mine our posts over the past couple of years to try to figure out why I put you on Ignore, or

b) go to bed, since it's going on 1:30 a.m. here, and see how you respond to this post after I've had a pot of coffee after I wake up. :yawn:

1 Reply

@FBM,

That's water under the bridge. Just saying I'm no shouter.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

For you to suppose, however, that the "scientific cosmological model" is closer to the REALITY (or can arrive at the REALITY better) than what you term mythological approach...is also illogical.

That isn't true at all Frank. If we followed your argument then we couldn't infer anything because we often make logical assumptions to reach conclusions. If there is a bear in my back yard, it is really as likely that it was dropped there by a God or that it got there on it's own? Can I logically assume that if there are claw marks on my fence and a hole in the fence that the bear tore apart my fence or must I put the same weight on a God just magically creating it in my backyard? I can't ever know for sure, can I?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
For you to suppose, however, that the "scientific cosmological model" is closer to the REALITY (or can arrive at the REALITY better) than what you term mythological approach...is also illogical.

That isn't true at all Frank. If we followed your argument then we couldn't infer anything because we often make logical assumptions to reach conclusions. If there is a bear in my back yard, it is really as likely that it was dropped there by a God or that it got there on it's own? Can I logically assume that if there are claw marks on my fence and a hole in the fence that the bear tore apart my fence or must I put the same weight on a God just magically creating it in my backyard? I can't ever know for sure, can I?

You cannot know for sure, Parados...but that was not my point.

If a bear is in your backyard...you consider all the possibilities of how it got there. You do not logically start out on a quest for how it got there by saying, "I will consider all possible means of it getting there...except that it was dropped off by someone who had a pet bear and wanted to get rid of it."

The so-called scientific approach to understanding the REALITY...seems to eliminate one POSSIBLE explanation...and to find all sorts of dubious reasons for doing so. They rationalize it away.

Now...in the case of a bear in your backyard...you can pretty much limit what you want to give serious consideration to. And certainly you do not have to give equal weight to highly improbable scenarios.

But in the incredibly complex question of "what is the true nature of the REALITY of existence"...one cannot logically rule out things like...the universe is the result of a creation effort by a god.

That is an illogical elimination.

That is all I am saying here. And insofar as "science" seems arbitrarily to rule out that particular possibility without truly considering it...I say it is as defective as the assertion that a GOD is required.

We do not know.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

The so-called scientific approach to understanding the REALITY...seems to eliminate one POSSIBLE explanation...and to find all sorts of dubious reasons for doing so. They rationalize it away.

What a load of horse puckey. Scientists simply say there is no evidence to support that while there is plenty of evidence to support a theory that has nothing to do with a mythical creature. There is evidence all around us that things happen in a natural world. There is no evidence that anything has ever been caused by the supernatural. The most logical cause to look for is therefor a natural one.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

You're right; there's no way I could know because you're apparently either too cowardly or ashamed to tell us what your hypothesis is.

My hypothesis is that you don't have any justified assumptions to claim that the Big Bang has created whatsoever, and that you don't even have the vaguest idea of how should the assumptions of a 'standard theory' look like ... not to say that you claim that you believe in the General Relativity Theory ... without even having read it (we are not talking about interpretations yet). When I presented the formal model of the General Relativity Theory to FM (without saying to him what it actually is) he said that it is absolute bullshit. I am not going to argue that it is not bulshit, but are you curious to know what I think about all that: both of you with FM believe blindly exclusively into the status quo only, you believe that the status quo is the best way to practice easy-makering and to make the safest scientific career and promotions ... without any reasonable justification, BTW.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

My hypothesis is that you don't have any justified assumptions to claim that the Big Bang has created whatsoever, and that you don't even have the vaguest idea of how should the assumptions of a 'standard theory' look like ... not to say that you claim that you believe in the General Relativity Theory ... without even having read it (we are not talking about interpretations yet). When I presented the formal model of the General Relativity Theory to FM (without saying to him what it actually is) he said that it is absolute bullshit. I am not going to argue that it is not bulshit, but are you curious to know what I think about all that: both of you with FM believe blindly exclusively into the status quo only, you believe that the status quo is the best way to practice easy-makering and to make the safest scientific career and promotions ... without any reasonable justification, BTW.

Nice put! and I really loved that piece about fm and relativity!!!!

Now we really know these dudes come from!!!

Good job!

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:

The so-called scientific approach to understanding the REALITY...seems to eliminate one POSSIBLE explanation...and to find all sorts of dubious reasons for doing so. They rationalize it away.
What a load of horse puckey. Scientists simply say there is no evidence to support that while there is plenty of evidence to support a theory that has nothing to do with a mythical creature. There is evidence all around us that things happen in a natural world. There is no evidence that anything has ever been caused by the supernatural. The most logical cause to look for is therefor a natural one.

If scientists were looking objectively...they would see that they cannot determine whether the stuff they are observing (the "evidence" you suggest exists) is the result of a GOD or not.

They MAY BE observing what a GOD has but into place...no matter how that GOD put it into place.

The scientists...and you apparently, inappropriately dismiss the notion that EVERYTHING they are observing...may be the result of a GOD. You are assuming, very inappropriately, that it IS NOT the result of a GOD.

The evolution issue is an example. Yes, science can show that various things happened and can (more or less) explain how they happened...BUT they cannot show that the cause of everything that they are observing is a GOD. They, and apparently you, simply dismiss that thought arbitrarily.

I see I will have no more success getting the blinders off you than I would getting them off the equally blind theists who say a GOD has to be involved.

But that won't stop me from efforting in that direction anyway.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Science does not look into the why of things. It just says how things happen. So if I should, say, dribble badly when I pee (as I did this morning), science can explain how this happened but not say if, for instance, God decided to punish me with some bad dribbling or if instead I was just distracted. Even if science can tell me that I was distracted, maybe God wanted me to be distracted so that I'd dribble...

Science is about how the physical world behaves. It has nothing to say about why, ultimately, the world is behaving one way or another. Science cannot tell you, for instance, why the world exists rather than not. So if you see a scientist say: "God does not exist", he is not behaving as a scientist when he says that, but as a philosopher. No laboratory experiment will ever prove that God does not exist.

However, we can say that evolution does not seem to follow the logical route which we, if we had to design it, would have tried to follow. It certainly does not look like a planned process. But of course, God could be making sure that evolution looks stochastic, even though it was entirely designed, just to confuse us... That guy God can be tricky.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know