@maxdancona,
Quote:Quote:My point is this, Frank. If we are going to have any kind of rational discussion about whether there is a god or not, or even if there might be a god or not, then we have to have some kind of understanding about what the word "god" means.
If the word "god" can mean some sort of pattern of existence, or a certain mathematical "truth" that encompasses the possibilities of what can or can't be, then sure. This is a lot different than a being who imitates the neurochemical processes in the human brain we experience as jealousy and love and anger and spite.
When I am discussing with Harald, at least I know what he has in mind when he says the word "God". With you, it is very difficult to respond to your argument because it seems the word "god" could mean anything from a anthropomorphic being to mathematical concept to a grape jelly bean.
(Incidentally I find the idea that a grape jelly bean set the Big Bang in motion ultimately leading to this discussion to be quite intriguing and impossible to refute).
Max, I understand you position and your considerations. I was annoyed with your dismissal of what I had to say…and I was more negative than necessary in my response.
But the basics of what I said matter in these kinds of discussions.
Here, we are not actually discussing the existence of any gods. (I agree with you that Herald seems to be thinking of a god like that pitiful creature from the Bible.)
But, there is still the possibility that a GOD exists. You, Max, may be that GOD. You don’t really know that anything out here actually exists…except for yourself and what you call “your thoughts and perceptions.”
You…as the GOD…MAY HAVE set all this in motion as a way of entertaining yourself…and are allowing all parts of it (the “discoveries” and such)…to unfold in an order that is essentially random.
What is happening…what has happened…what will happen…may all be the result of intelligent design way beyond anything you can even imagine…and the “intelligent design” part was to keep it all hidden from yourself. I makes the puzzle more fun.
Herald is full of soup. You can read what he is writing and easily see that. It is more difficult to see your own nonsense. It is absurd for him to argue that he can logically show that “all of this” has to be the result of intelligent design…BUT IT IS EQUALLY absurd for you to argue that it is not.
Mostly, those two opposed absurdities arise from the fact that neither of you know whether there is intelligent design at work or not. You are each making wild, blind, guesses about the REALITY.
I could go on, but I’ll wait for a response to this so far.
maxdancona wrote:
Quote:If you feel comfortable degrading what I wrote to being nothing more than, "Something may have caused something"...be by guest, Max.
I don't at all feel comfortable degrading what you say. That is why I keep on asking you, even prodding you, to define your terms better. I am not mocking you, and I certainly am trying my best to have an open mind. I assure you that my blindness is neither selective nor elective.
All I am asking of you is to please define your terms better. I think it is reasonable to ask for a definition of "intelligent design" that both of us can accept before we attempt to discuss whether "intelligent design" is a possibility.
If there is a creator GOD...whatever that GOD did to set the universe outside of itself into being...is what I mean by intelligent design.
Existence itself is a very interesting and intriguing thing, Max...and utterly beyond my comprehension. I react viscerally negative to any attempts to trivialize or simplify "existence" or any component of it.
If someone suggests that "x" has to be a part of it...or that "x" cannot be a part of it...I turn off. There is absolutely no way that I can accept that anyone in this forum can say...other than as a blind guess...anything of that sort about existence.
Herald is saying that existence and its components are too complex and complicated to rationally be conceived of as having “happened by accident.” He guesses there is a GOD…and that the GOD set things in motion. That “setting in motion” seems to be his idea of “intelligent design.” This differs appreciably from the people who are using Intelligent Design as a disguise for Creationism…although for atheists it has the same sour taste.
You (and others like you) suggest that any notion of intelligent design is to be discarded out-of-hand. That is because, whether you acknowledge it as strong atheists or pretend otherwise as weak atheists, you guess that there are no gods. Because of that intelligent design or Intelligent Design of any stripe has to be discarded.
I am saying that we do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence…and any blind guesses made about it should be treated as just that…blind guesses.
I do not know how to make my position clearer. Ask a specific question on what I have said here, but I don’t think it will be much clearer.
I am saying that you are making no more sense in opposing what Herald is peddling using the reasoning you are using…than Herald is making using his reasoning.
