Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

The point being: it doesn't look like an intelligent design process, but like a stochastic trial and error process. This much we can say. The term 'design' is misleading.

The term "design" IS NOT misleading.

And the observation that it does not look like an intelligent design process is purely gratuitous on your part. Why are you supposing that if there were a designer intelligence...it would not design things exactly the way they are going?

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

...
C'mon, FBM. You know damn well there is the possibility of a GOD.

By all means, demonstrate in detail how you know for a certainty that such is the case.

Because everything but the impossible is possible. Are you saying you can show that a GOD is an impossibility?

If you cannot...you must acknowledge that it is possible.

Quote:

Quote:
Why not just acknowledge that there is...rather than hiding behind "the paucity of directly relevant evidence?"

Quote:
Because that would be to claim to know something beyond which I can claim certainty.

Allow me to respectfully suggest that you simply are refusing to acknowledge that you can claim certainty. Absent the certainty that it is impossible...IT IS certain that it is possible.

Quote:

If you want to do that, go ahead. I'm going to reserve judgement until someting decisive arises.

We can talk about this after you comment on my comments up above.

Quote:

Quote:
If furtherance of that thought...allow me this question.

In spite of "the paucity of directly relevant evidence" for intelligent life on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...do you think there is the POSSIBILITY of such life on any of those planets?[/b]

Categorical error. Alien life doesn't require any more of a supernatural explanation than does terrestrial life. Given that life exists here, I can't see anything to suggest that it should be impossible elsewhere. If you know of something that does, please share.

As I have said here in this thread...and in many other threads...IF there is a GOD...then the GOD is NOT "supernatural." If there is a GOD...the GOD is as natural as hair on a human head or sand on a beach.

Stop thinking in terms of "supernatural."

And I did not ask if life could be impossible elsewhere...I specifically asked about intelligent life on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol.

So I ask again:

In spite of "the paucity of directly relevant evidence" for intelligent life on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...do you think there is the POSSIBILITY of such life on any of those planets?

Since you said earlier, "I have no idea whether or not a god is possible, considering the paucity of directly relevant evidence"...I am in effect asking if you have "no idea" if THE POSSIBILITY of such life exists on those planets because of this paucity of directly relevant evidence.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

My observation is better informed than yours, that's all. Just because you cannot appreciate a point does not mean it is gratuitous. 'Haphazard assembly and disassembly' would be a better phrase than 'intelligent design'. It would fit the data better. How do we know god is intelligent? Or a designer? Totally gratuitous ideas...

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

C'mon, FBM. You know damn well there is the possibility of a GOD.

By all means, demonstrate in detail how you know for a certainty that such is the case.[/quote]

Quote:

Because everything but the impossible is possible. Are you saying you can show that a GOD is an impossibility?

If you cannot...you must acknowledge that it is possible.

False dichotomy. I am perfectly able to suspend judgement.

Quote:

Allow me to respectfully suggest that you simply are refusing to acknowledge that you can claim certainty. Absent the certainty that it is impossible...IT IS certain that it is possible.

By all means, demonstrate your support for your certainty that it's a black-or-white issue and that agnosticism is an impossible position.

Quote:

We can talk about this after you comment on my comments up above.

Done.

Quote:

If furtherance of that thought...allow me this question.

In spite of "the paucity of directly relevant evidence" for intelligent life on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...do you think there is the POSSIBILITY of such life on any of those planets?[/b]

There is demonstrable evidence that there is life on this planet. That evidence in no way requires a supernatural explanation. I can't see any reason why life would be somehow be impossible on other planets within the habitable zone, but if you have some empirical evidence to suggest that it may, I'll listen.

Quote:

As I have said here in this thread...and in many other threads...IF there is a GOD...then the GOD is NOT "supernatural." If there is a GOD...the GOD is as natural as hair on a human head or sand on a beach.

Stop thinking in terms of "supernatural."

There is a lexical definition of the word and I use it accordingly.

Quote:

And I did not ask if life could be impossible elsewhere...I specifically asked about intelligent life on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol.

This is the first I've seen of this limitation, but assuming that you're reporting honestly, I still don't see how this changes the question. What does distance have to do with it?

Quote:

So I ask again:

In spite of "the paucity of directly relevant evidence" for intelligent life on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...do you think there is the POSSIBILITY of such life on any of those planets?

Answered above.

Quote:

Since you said earlier, "I have no idea whether or not a god is possible, considering the paucity of directly relevant evidence"...I am in effect asking if you have "no idea" if THE POSSIBILITY of such life exists on those planets because of this paucity of directly relevant evidence.[/b]

Again, answered above. I am suspending judgement about any metaphysical claim with regards to certainty. Inductive reasoning vs deductive. You might want to look that up. The distinction is pivotal. I'm not the one claiming certainty. That would be the ones pointing to a Bronze Age mythological explanation without empirical support.

The only certainty that I'm claiming is that A2K's creationists' arguments are rife with logical fallacies and lack of empirical support and are therefore logically weaker than that of their opponents, which are based on observable, falsifiable observations and necessary (mathematical) inference. Until you acknowledge this distinction, you will continue to be unable to understand my position. I don't claim to know what ultimately is the fact; I only claim to know which argument is stronger with regards to a couple of millennia of human investigation. Which will ultimately prove to be "true"? Fucked if I know, but it will be the one that will be able to support its claims with convincing evidence, I think.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

My observation is better informed than yours, that's all. [/q

Just because you cannot appreciate a point does not mean it is gratuitous. 'Haphazard assembly and disassembly' would be a better phrase than 'intelligent design'. It would fit the data better. How do we know god is intelligent? Or a designer? Totally gratuitous ideas...
[/quote]

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

My observation is better informed than yours, that's all.

I seriously doubt that.

Quote:

Just because you cannot appreciate a point does not mean it is gratuitous. 'Haphazard assembly and disassembly' would be a better phrase than 'intelligent design'. It would fit the data better.

If that makes you feel better...go with it. Ever hear of an Edsel?

Quote:

How do we know god is intelligent?

Beats me. I would never assert that a GOD even exists...let alone that it is intelligent.

Quote:

Or a designer? Totally gratuitous ideas...

Absolutely. Nice to see you can recognize gratuitous ideas from the other side. Now...work on seeing them from your side.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

FBM wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

C'mon, FBM. You know damn well there is the possibility of a GOD.

By all means, demonstrate in detail how you know for a certainty that such is the case.

Quote:
Because everything but the impossible is possible. Are you saying you can show that a GOD is an impossibility?

If you cannot...you must acknowledge that it is possible.

False dichotomy. I am perfectly able to suspend judgement.

I am sure you can "suspend judgement." But unless a thing is impossible...it is possible. So unless you can show that a GOD is impossible...it is possible.

Quote:

Quote:
Allow me to respectfully suggest that you simply are refusing to acknowledge that you can claim certainty. Absent the certainty that it is impossible...IT IS certain that it is possible.

By all means, demonstrate your support for your certainty that it's a black-or-white issue and that agnosticism is an impossible position.

If it is not impossible...it is possible.

If you disagree with that...let's talk about it.

Quote:

We can talk about this after you comment on my comments up above.

Done.

Quote:

Quote:
If furtherance of that thought...allow me this question.

In spite of "the paucity of directly relevant evidence" for intelligent life on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...do you think there is the POSSIBILITY of such life on any of those planets?[/b]

There is demonstrable evidence that there is life on this planet. That evidence in no way requires a supernatural explanation. I can't see any reason why life would be somehow be impossible on other planets within the habitable zone, but if you have some empirical evidence to suggest that it may, I'll listen.

Quote:

As I have said here in this thread...and in many other threads...IF there is a GOD...then the GOD is NOT "supernatural." If there is a GOD...the GOD is as natural as hair on a human head or sand on a beach.

Stop thinking in terms of "supernatural."

There is a lexical definition of the word and I use it accordingly.

That is the problem with dictionaries...they tell us how people use words rather than actually thinking about what is being said.

In any case, if a GOD exists...it IS a part of nature.

Quote:

Quote:
And I did not ask if life could be impossible elsewhere...I specifically asked about intelligent life on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol.

This is the first I've seen of this limitation, but assuming that you're reporting honestly, I still don't see how this changes the question. What does distance have to do with it?

If you had read my first post on the subject...you would have seen it.

I am not asking if there is other life in the universe.

I am asking about a specific part of the universe...namely, the planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol.

Do you mind answering that question?

Quote:

Quote:
So I ask again:

In spite of "the paucity of directly relevant evidence" for intelligent life on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...do you think there is the POSSIBILITY of such life on any of those planets?

Answered above.

Actually, FBM...it was not answered...it was avoided.

I would really appreciate your answer...because I think you will see that it throws your earlier answer with regard to the possibility of a GOD into question.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Bull **** again from you Frank. Science deals with the natural. I will say there is no current testable evidence of a God in the natural world.

Actually, no we are saying intelligent design has no scientific basis and therefor can not be taught as science. That is not the same thing as what you are misrepresenting.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

Quote:
Yes, i'm assuming DESIGN because that's what 'intelligent design' speaks of. And I am saying ghat evolution looks like an non-designed, stochastic process, with huge amounts of waste and error.

It can't be! Just do some statistics on it! It is IMPOSSIBLE

You mean your idiotic argument about how you think statistics work? According to you the more chances there are for something to happen the less likely it is to happen. So once again, we are left with you arguing that no one has ever won the lottery.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Every bit of the so-called empirical evidence for the "naturalistic explanation"...MAY BE evidence for intelligent design.

Every bit of so-called empirical evidence MAY BE evidence that you are an idiot. However without any actual way to test that evidence, there is no way to reach the conclusion that you are an idiot or that there is an intelligent designer. On the other hand, the evidence points to a designer that is fumbling around and not very good at designing if we assume a designer.

Science can't deal with what MAY BE when it can't be tested.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Black-or-white reasoning is fallacious. It's a false dichotomy. There remains the possibility of suspending judgement. To say that one argument is stronger or weaker than another is not a dichotomous position. If the weaker side subsequently presents an equal or superior argument logically defensible and based on observation rather than mere abstract speculation, then I'm willing to jump ship.

In (not so) short, I don't claim to know whether or not there is a god; I only know that with regards to observational data and applied logic, the theistic explanation is relatively unsupported in the sense of being unnecessary to explain observed phenomena. Parsimony. And not by just a narrow margin. By a long shot. If they close the margin, good for them. I'll adjust my presentation to support whichever side produces the stronger argument. But I will not claim certainty until certainty is clearly demonstrated. Given what has been argued so far, it looks to me as if the supernatural explanation is relatively unsupported. If you know of more robust support for that claim, by all means present it.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Bull **** again from you Frank. Science deals with the natural. I will say there is no current testable evidence of a God in the natural world.

I also say there is no current testable evidence of a GOD in the natural world. I freely (AND OFTEN) acknowledge that. I also acknowledge there is absolutely NO NEED for a GOD to explain anything.

So what?

How does that impact on anything being discussed here...and where in hell are you getting the idea that I am talking "bull ****?"

Quote:

Actually, no we are saying intelligent design has no scientific basis and therefor can not be taught as science. That is not the same thing as what you are misrepresenting.

Many people are going a LOT further than that...and I am not misrepresenting anything.

If that is all you were saying...I would not even touch this thread, because I agree with it in spades.

But you guys are going a LOT further than that. Fact is, a great deal of the discussion here has been to cast doubt on the possibility of there even being an "intelligent designer"...to poke fun at the idea.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You're welcome to doubt whatever you want, but I studied evolution, paleontology and the fossil record at university. And these things show what looks like a haphazard process. They don't show a sense of a planned, orderly process. You may not like the idea, but such an observation is not gratuitous. It is based on facts.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:

Every bit of the so-called empirical evidence for the "naturalistic explanation"...MAY BE evidence for intelligent design.

Every bit of so-called empirical evidence MAY BE evidence that you are an idiot. However without any actual way to test that evidence, there is no way to reach the conclusion that you are an idiot or that there is an intelligent designer. On the other hand, the evidence points to a designer that is fumbling around and not very good at designing if we assume a designer.

Science can't deal with what MAY BE when it can't be tested.

Regain your composure, Parados...and re-post...and I will attempt to respond. If you want to play the "let's call each other names" game...you'll have to play with someone else.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Also, I would ask if you think that just because something is imaginable that it is also demonstrably possible. I can imagine an invisible, undetectable creator-entity, but I can also imagine uincorns and monkeys flying out of my ass. It is equally reasonable to doubt both of those imaginations, seeing as how neither of them has been observed either directly or indirectly.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Your bullshit is when you say science says there is no God. Science says no such thing. It says there is currently no evidence of God.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I guess you failed to read my post. I didn't call you names. The chances of all the empirical evidence proving you are an idiot are the same as all the empirical evidence proving there is a god. That means it isn't testable and is unlikely.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Black-or-white reasoning is fallacious. It's a false dichotomy. There remains the possibility of suspending judgement. To say that one argument is stronger or weaker than another is not a dichotomous position. If the weaker side subsequently presents an equal or superior argument logically defensible and based on observation rather than mere abstract speculation, then I'm willing to jump ship.

In (not so) short, I don't claim to know whether or not there is a god; I only know that with regards to observational data and applied logic, the theistic explanation is relatively unsupported in the sense of being unnecessary to explain observed phenomena. Parsimony. And not by just a narrow margin. By a long shot. If they close the margin, good for them. I'll adjust my presentation to support whichever side produces the stronger argument. But I will not claim certainty until certainty is clearly demonstrated. Given what has been argued so far, it looks to me as if the supernatural explanation is relatively unsupported. If you know of more robust support for that claim, by all means present it.

Actually, you probably mean the "theistic explanation" of a bunch of people who want to go with myths from 2000+ years ago.

I am offering what you might term "theistic explanations" or "theistic possibilities"...that are every bit as strong as anything you are offering from the other side. (I am not a theist...I am merely arguing that the non-theist position on this question is as ungrounded in logic as the theistic position here.)

As for the "more robust"...I suggest that just as you insist "the evidence" supports a naturalistic blah, blah, blah...

...all of this MAY have been set in motion by a GOD...and the evidence is actually evidence of the intelligent design of that GOD.

We do not know.

Let's take this in stages. Please actually answer this question:

Do you agree that if there is the possibility of a GOD...there is the possibility of intelligent design?

And keep in mind that if you get into that "I have no idea whether or not a god is possible, considering the paucity of directly relevant evidence"...we will have to examine whether you are consistent in that kind of thinking by examining how you respond to "Considering the paucity of directly relevant evidence of intelligent life on the nearest 10 stars to Sol...are you saying that you have no idea if such life is POSSIBLE????

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

You're welcome to doubt whatever you want, but I studied evolution, paleontology and the fossil record at university. And these things show what looks like a haphazard process. They don't show a sense of a planned, orderly process. You may not like the idea, but such an observation is not gratuitous. It is based on facts.

I say again...why are you supposing that an intelligent designer would not design the process so that it appears to be disorderly and haphazard. Why are you arbitrarily supposing that an intelligent designer would not design EXACTLY what we are finding exists...and have it operate in exactly the way we are discovering it operates?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Your bullshit is when you say science says there is no God. Science says no such thing. It says there is currently no evidence of God.

I never ever said that, Parados.

Quote what I actually said...(which was limited in scope)...and deal with what I actually said rather than the crap you make up for me...and then call it crap.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know