Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@FBM,

That's because it's an impossible task. But don't tell Frank that, because according to him we're all "guessing." He wants others to prove there's a god or no god.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I think the inductive approach is good for establishing probabilities, which is not the same as guessing.

2 Replies

@FBM,

Absolutely!

I'm now in Cordoba, Spain, getting ready for our 2.5 hour bus ride to Grenada this morning for our tour. Today, our sixth day of this trip, has been very rewarding, even though this is my third trip to this part of Spain.

It's five minutes to 6am, and breakfast starts at 7.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Tenga un buen viaje...

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I love Andalusia, especially Cordoba, Grenada and Seville. Just a bit jealous (except for the early start!)

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's because it's an impossible task. But don't tell Frank that, because according to him we're all "guessing." He wants others to prove there's a god or no god.

No I do not...and only a small, unscrupulous person would suggest that is what I am doing...or have done.

Anyone who asserts "there are no gods" IS asserting a guess. That is all it can be. Anyone who asserts "there is a GOD" is almost certainly asserting nothing but a guess also.

In any case, I have NEVER asked anyone to "prove" "there is a GOD" or "there is no GOD", because I recognize that would be unfair and dishonorable. (Look up "unfair" and "dishonorable"...you will discover what they mean.)

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I think the inductive approach is good for establishing probabilities, which is not the same as guessing.

I would love to hear the factors (YOU suppose exist) that would go into a meaningful probability estimate for "there are no gods."

Other than variations on "theists can produce no GOD for inspection" and "there is no need for a GOD to explain anything"...(neither of which is worth a grain of salt in a probability estimate of that sort)...I have never seen anything offered.

Perhaps you can.

0 Replies

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/12/when-my-son-survived-a-serious-accident-i-didnt-thank-god-i-thanked-honda/

Quote:

When my son survived a serious accident, I didn’t thank God. I thanked Honda.
Something sad and strange happens when we thank God: We tend to stop there.

Last Friday night, a semi-trailer pushed the car my son was driving into a Jersey barrier. The trailer’s back wheel landed on the hood of the car, less than six inches from my son’s head. Every window shattered, throwing glass inches from his face.

But my son has not a scratch on him.

I was so overwhelmed with gratitude that I wrote a letter to Honda praising the expertly engineered safety features that saved his life...I posted the letter on Facebook, and closed it with this:

I want to extend my thanks to the engineers who used their intelligence and skill to create a car that safe, to the crash test dummies who have died a thousand horrible deaths and to your executives who did not scrimp on safety.

Thank you, Honda.

That last line rubbed some people the wrong way. While many who left comments on my post were just glad that my son was alive and well, others wanted to know why I had thanked Honda for that outcome. The entity that deserved my thanks, they said, was God. One commenter wrote: “I am thankful that God held your son in His embrace and I am curious why you thanked Honda rather than Him.”

...over many years of thinking about religion and faith, I have noticed that something sad and somewhat strange happens when we thank God: We tend to stop there. We simply overlook the decisions, the science, the policies and the people who contributed to the “miracle.” To put it another way: When we focus on supernatural deliverance from harm, we often ignore all of the human ways we can improve our own safety. I am concerned that we may associate survival of serious accidents with the unpredictable hand of Providence, not with airbags, safety testing and the regulations that have put them in place...

1 Reply

How not to science, or How to pseudoscience: http://www.realclearscience.com/lists/junk_science_of_2014/

0 Replies

Oh my, FBM is pretending to be ignoring me again.

I love it when this happens...especially when he/she posts nonsense to emphasize the lie.

Anyway...the pretense really makes sense. The notion of having calculated probability on the existence or non-existence of a GOD...is a laughable absurdity. I enjoy it when theists pretend they have done it...and even more when atheists pretend.

Wink

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

Anyone who asserts "there are no gods" IS asserting a guess.

Not when the concept is meaningless... Hence there is no definable definition of a "GOD"..., or more specifically what makes something as such.. It's inherently an incoherent concept, and only requires opinion alone to verify there is no such thing since the concept itself is at its best a concept and title of opinion.. Lastly, and since I for example do not consider Existence GOD, there can be no god in or of Existence by consequence. Existence after all is what determines if there is or isn't a GOD, that is what any theist pleads for... So in reality, either everything and everyone is GOD, or there is none at all.. Take your pick because it's a literal dichotomy. No probability calculation argument need apply here.

2 Replies

@TheJackal,

Quote:

God
ɡäd/
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"
synonyms: deity, goddess, divine being, celestial being, divinity, immortal, avatar
"sacrifices to appease the gods"
an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god.
synonyms: idol, graven image, icon, totem, talisman, fetish, juju
"wooden gods"
used as a conventional personification of fate.
"he dialed the number and, the gods relenting, got through at once"
3.
an adored, admired, or influential person.
"he has little time for the fashion victims for whom he is a god"
a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god.
"don't make money your god"

1 Reply

@FBM,

The dictionary only gives definition of common usage, not a "Universal" definition... To point:

Quote:

Pantheism is the belief that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity,[1]

The New Oxford Dictionary Of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1998. p. 1341. ISBN 0-19-861263-X.

Now we note that your source cites a creator of the "Universe", however one cannot create the "Universe".. Why? Universe is actually another term for "Existence" as is "Reality". Universe is defined as "all that exists".

Quote:

The universe is commonly defined as everything that exists.[1] It includes all kinds of physical matter and energy, the planets, stars, galaxies, and all the contents of space.[2][3]

1. Webster's New World College Dictionary. Wiley Publishing, Inc.. 2010.
2. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 2010.
3. Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary.

This is not to be confused with "The Observable Universe", and is not something in which can be created for one cannot create that which itself requires to exist. This falls under set theory in where the Universe is the Universal set of all sets, and something like a being or the observable universe are subsets of the universal set "The Universe", or for a better word "Existence". And to express this, I cite the following videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XmtW_fIj68&index=58&list=LLMTiTyPLWd6DTh5DmUyKBmQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNpufW3_yVs

We can essentially rule out any concept suggesting they are the creators of the Universe as the Universe cannot be created. We can however say that any emergent thing such as a conscious state, the observable Universe, life, us ect..., are emergent properties of the Universe itself, or Existence itself to which is without question the essence, origin, and totality of all that exists. The Universe is a self-generating system from itself. It is not a divine being even though beings such as ourselves are much a part of it as products from it. Yes we can say some sentient life or beings are more powerful than others, but under such criteria we would ourselves be gods. It's such a flawed concept that if falls apart under its own premises.

Furthermore, and to express why the concept of GOD is incoherent, is that it makes no sense for one part of Existence to worship another part of Existence as "GOD".. That would be Existence worshiping itself not only monotheistically, but polytheistically as Existence is every mind, religion, belief, or non-belief for that matter. Hence again Existence itself shows why the concept is inherently incoherent. This ignoring the Paradox in that stating the Universe (Existence) as GOD would make the concept entirely moot.. So if Existence is god, so are you, me, and everything / everyone else in and of Existence. If Existence is not GOD, then there isn't any such thing since Existence is all that exists.

So where does the definition you provide make the concept anymore meaningful in light of the problems and Paradoxes that essentially make it moot and meaningless? Where in this do we ever need consider the concept that is inherently self-refuting?

Lastly, if we were to compare and contemplate concepts of GOD, what GOD could ever be greater than Existence itself? What is GOD without Existence?

I'm sorry, but the concept is nonsensical and meaningless... It cannot logically be established as a coherent concept worth consideration.

1 Reply

@TheJackal,

Quote:

a "Universal" definition

What do you mean by that? Is there such a thing?

I use the vernacular because that's most often what people intend to communicate when they use the word. If you use a specialized philosophical definition, then you're no longer talking about the same thing that others are talking about. I'm willing to discuss either, but unless it's specified in advance, I use the everyday definition.

1 Reply

When one is talking about so-called "intelligent design," 99 times out of 100, one will be talking to either a fundamentalist christian, or a con man who exploits them. That would be the god of Abraham, and that definition is not difficult at all.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

What do you mean by that? Is there such a thing?

That's the whole point... It's essentially meaningless as there is no Universal coherent definition. It's a concept of opinion that has many different definitions that cannot be universally applied and remain at all coherent. There is no such thing when even when applied to Existence itself it becomes meaningless.. It's a fruitless concept.

Quote:

"I use the vernacular because that's most often what people intend to communicate when they use the word. If you use a specialized philosophical definition, then you're no longer talking about the same thing that others are talking about. I'm willing to discuss either, but unless it's specified in advance, I use the everyday definition."

It doesn't matter what people intend to communicate as the merit of the concept in general is reflected when you look at it from the furthest extremes you can move the goal posts, and whether or not the concept has any real coherent value. The concept of GOD doesn't have that, it becomes moot, meaningless, and self-refuting.. So to demonstrate, just answer both this question:

1. Is Existence GOD? (Yes/No)

It's the only question that needs be asked to demonstrate the merit and value of the concept of GOD. It will demonstrate how meaningful the concept actually is.

1 Reply

@TheJackal,

The word has a useful designation for communication, even if it evaporates under scrutiny.

It matters to me what people intend to say, not what I impose on their statements. I try to communicate with the person's intended message, not what I interpret it to mean. That is, I try to meet the where they are and work from there, rather from an ivory tower perspective.

1 Reply

@FBM,

I understand, but any honest perspective is one that looks at the whole, the entire field, or the very field itself. This doesn't prevent anyone from saying a higher powered being is their GOD.. However, if they were to really step back and look at it, it becomes hard to not realize how nonsensical it is. Another way to look at this is that we are all of existence, and we are literally existence having a this very discussion with itself. Yes, you and I are in fact existence talking to itself from two relative minds of itself... I think Alan Watt's expressed this realization far better than I am here in his lecture "The Real You"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMRrCYPxD0I

Quote:

"The really deep down you is the whole Universe"

Or philhellenes in "Science Saved My Soul" :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk

Quote:

" night three years ago, I knew a small part of what’s out there—the kinds of things, the scale of things, the age of things, the violence and destruction, appalling energy, hopeless gravity, and the despair of distance—but I feel safe, because I know my world is protected by the very distance that others fear. It’s like the universe screams in your face, “Do you know what I am? How grand I am? How old I am? Can you even comprehend what I am? What are you, compared to me?” And when you know enough science, you can just smile up at the universe and reply, “Dude, I am you.”"

There is no greater realization than this..., we are what has made us as much as what has made us is that which we are. We are then therefore of one thing whether we realize it or not, and there is no god.

2 Replies

@TheJackal,

That is complete babble-speak there. The sort of thing that one expects from happy-horseshit Buddhists and drugged-out hippies.

1 Reply

@TheJackal,

What is it in the nature of energy which appalls one? What is it in the nature of gravity that makes it hopeless? Why should one despair at the thought of distances?

Dude, i am definitely not you nor the cosmos.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know