Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

You're gorgeous Lola.I do so love intelligent ladies when they apply their highly tuned minds to the pressing issues of the day.

And you do it with such panache as well.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
That's not exactly the point, c.i. - the point is that an "All Perfect" entity would have neither need nor want to create anything, perfect, imperfect, or otherwise; "perfection", particularly unambiguously as would be entailed by "All Perfect", entails a completeness, leaving nothing to be wanted, needed, or created.

Now that doesn't mean there is not or may not be an all-perfect entity - it just renders creation a concept incompatible with any such entity.

Since I am sure that you don't consider yourself to be one, then on what basis do you claim to understand the universe of possibilities for the motivation of such an entity?

I don't claim to understand the universe of possibilities, George, but objective, pragmatic semantics and applied logic argue against the probabilty of any such entity as is exemplified by the God of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia. No forensically valid case may be made for the proposition..

You contradict yourself. The "God of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia" (ponderous phrase, that) was certainly not an example of the "All Perfect" entity to which you referred in your earlier post, and to which my comment was addressed. It seems to me that, instead of responding, you merely changed the subject. You certainly have not presented a refutation of the logic of creation with this.

You should also consider that we have "no forensically valid case" for the origin of the universe either. Physics can (partly) model much of its growth and development, but offers nothing whatever to explain its origin.

Context, George - context; the digression at hand began here:

[url=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1771359#1771359]timber[/url] wrote:

I too gotta disagree with Dawkins' assertion "God Cannot Exist" - all that science can say in that regard is that to within a statistically very significant degree of probability, the existance of such a critter is unlikely.

Logic, on the other hand, can make a valid claim for the non-existance of such a critter as the God of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia, as expressed within and defined by that mythopaeia:

The mythopaeia declares its godhead to be "All Perfect"

"Perfect" means without fault, flaw, want, need, or other defect. Adding "All" to the attribute of "Perfect" is nought but a redundancy, though it does rather disambiguate the concept; perfection is an absolute, subject to no qualifier - a thing, state, or condition of being either is perfect or it is not - period.

An All Perfect Entity logically would have neither need nor want to form or create anything. Therefore, to assert that an All Perfect Entity created the universe entails a logical contradiction. Now, whether or not there is or even might be an All Perfect Entity, an All Perfect Entity logically could have had no role in the creation of the universe.

As to "the origin of the universe", so what? Science makes no claim, nor has it any basis from which to make any such claim. Science doesn't deal with the metaphysical; that's the purview of theologians and mystics.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

parados wrote-

Quote:
I also assume you have no truck with those that invented language either.

That's a really wild,not to say ridiculous,assumption to make and no mistake.

This is where you seem to have problems with language Spendi. It is a ridiculous assumption but it is no mistake? What isn't the mistake? The assumption? I see no way to diagram the sentence that doesn't make my assumption correct based on your use of "no mistake."

Could you perhaps try to clarify this sentence for those of us that speak proper English. Perhaps I should have elaborated and said you have no truck with those that created rules of grammar too.

Quote:

Some people act without examining and some might examine without acting but it doesn't make the person that acts any more correct than the person that doesn't act.

We are not concerned with being "correct".We are concerned with Destiny.The succesful men of action decide what is correct and what is error.Somebody has to act.You can't proceed with thinking.[/quote] What makes the act successful? Merely the fact that they acted? Your claim that Bush, Blair and Putin would be remembered is projecting that they were correct and an assumption that Dawkins wouldn't be. Certainly you can't claim that Dawkins statement is no action at all. Perhaps it is Dawkins' viewpoint that is destiny. We have no way of telling based on today. Your argument makes no sense since it gives you the power to judge some acts by men (Dawkins) but precludes others from judging the acts of other men since they are "men of action" driven by destiny.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

As to "the origin of the universe", so what? Science makes no claim, nor has it any basis from which to make any such claim. Science doesn't deal with the metaphysical; that's the purview of theologians and mystics.

Correct. That is exactly what makes your assertions variously stated to the effect that that "logic" (or science) makes it unlikely that a creator exixts, utterly without merit.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

ros-

There are 39,748 readers of this thread and it hasn't been going all that long.It has gone past the "weather" thread as if it was running out of gas after giving it two years start.The rest of them have fallen over as they strode out of the starting stalls.

So, you think those 39,748 readers are your audience Spendi? Actually, you're probably right to a degree. People just love to watch a disaster in progress Wink

0 Replies

spendi, I can assure you that Lola loves intelligent men, but it has nothing to do with panache or your kind of "highly tuned minds" that says absolutely nothing of import.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

As to "the origin of the universe", so what? Science makes no claim, nor has it any basis from which to make any such claim. Science doesn't deal with the metaphysical; that's the purview of theologians and mystics.
Correct. That is exactly what makes your assertions variously stated to the effect that that "logic" (or science) makes it unlikely that a creator exixts, utterly without merit.

Nope - no such thing, George. While Science employs logic, they are not, as you allude, the same thing. Science cannot deal with the metaphysical, but logic is under no such constraint. A perfectly valid logical argument against the existence of the God of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia (which is the assemblage and construct of myths, legends, history, moralality, ethics, tradition, and canon foundational to the 3 consanguine monotheistic major religions extant; Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).

Now, if you wish, go ahead and decontruct the logical argument presented again below, and demonstrate in what and which particulars it errs, and in what manner:

Quote:

Logic, on the other hand, can make a valid claim for the non-existance of such a critter as the God of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia, as expressed within and defined by that mythopaeia:

The mythopaeia declares its godhead to be "All Perfect"

"Perfect" means without fault, flaw, want, need, or other defect. Adding "All" to the attribute of "Perfect" is nought but a redundancy, though it does rather disambiguate the concept; perfection is an absolute, subject to no qualifier - a thing, state, or condition of being either is perfect or it is not - period.

An All Perfect Entity logically would have neither need nor want to form or create anything. Therefore, to assert that an All Perfect Entity created the universe entails a logical contradiction. Now, whether or not there is or even might be an All Perfect Entity, an All Perfect Entity logically could have had no role in the creation of the universe.

Does the mythopaeia hold its godhead to be All Perfect"?

Is not "Perfect" by definition an unqualifiable absolute applied to a thing, state, or condition of being, entailing the described entity be without fault, flaw, want, need, or other defect?

By what stretch of the imagination would, or even might, an entity without fault, flaw, want, need, or other defect have cause, want or need to create, or for that matter, to destroy or in any other wise alter, anything?

That's not science, its logic. The proposition of the existence of a godhead as defined through the Abrahamic Mythopaeia presents an irresolvable logical contradiction. Now again, that does not prove such a godhead does not exist, it merely demonstrates that said godhead presents an irresolvable logical contradiction; the proposition self-cancels.

0 Replies

And my original point was that a creature of finite powers and numerous imperfections cannot presume to know and comprehend the logic of the all apwerful all perfect entity which you postyulate.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

And my original point was that a creature of finite powers and numerous imperfections cannot presume to know and comprehend the logic of the all apwerful all perfect entity which you postyulate.

Be that as it may, that is irrelevant to the fact that logically the proposition of the Abrahamic godhead self cancels.

0 Replies

How so if the heart of your argument is invalid?

0 Replies

I agree Timber.

And thank you Spendi for your nice note, you're a sweetie.......but what? you don't want to argue with me? Or are you in agreement with my argument?

And yes, I do love intelligent men and here, on this thread, I am surrounded by them.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

How so if the heart of your argument is invalid?

What is invalid?

0 Replies

Has anyone seen this article? Amazing.

http://www.alternet.org/story/30335/

Jews Say 'Feh' to Darwin

By Mariah Blake, Miami New Times. Posted January 4, 2006.

The Orthodox Jewish community clashes over intelligent design.

Quote:

On a recent Tuesday evening, Moshe Tendler, an influential Orthodox rabbi and Yeshiva University biology professor, ambled onto the stage at Kovens Conference Center in North Miami. A stately figure with a wispy white beard and heavy glasses, he surveyed the 300-strong crowd of scientists and intellectuals -- most clad in yarmulkes and dark suits with tallith tassels dangling about their waists -- and urged them to spread the word that Darwin was wrong.

Quote:

. . . The conversation proved divisive. Tendler kicked off the conference by attacking the idea that complex life could flow from "random evolution." "That is irrational," he said.

As soon as Tendler finished speaking, biologist Sheldon Gottlieb rushed to one of two microphones perched in the aisles. "We all know evolution is not random," he grumbled. "It goes through the filter of natural selection You cannot use those arguments with this audience." Tendler and Gottlieb sparred for about five minutes. Meanwhile, long lines began to form at the mikes. But the moderator cut the question-and-answer session short and sent the crowd home.

Quote:

Dembski, a slender man in a tweed blazer and a forest green oxford shirt, spoke the following morning, and more than 400 people packed in to see him. Besides Jewish scientists and intellectuals, the crowd included students from the Hebrew Academy and the Lubavitch Educational Center, as well as a busload of girls from Orthodox Beis Chana School, who arrived with Pumas and Nikes tucked beneath their ankle-length skirts.

Much of Dembski's talk concentrated on the evidence of design in nature. He offered the classic example of the tiny flagella that bacteria use to propel themselves through their environment. "They can spin at 100,000 rpm," Dembski marveled. "And then in a quarter-turn, they're spinning the other direction. Imagine if a blender could do that Is it such a stretch to think a real engineer was involved?"

After about 45 minutes, Dembski wrapped up his talk, and dozens of attendees swarmed the microphones again, many of them eager to air their objections. "Our speaker has fuzzied the main issue," complained Nathan Aviezar, who teaches physics at Bar Ilan University in Israel. "The whole enterprise of science is to explain life without invoking supernatural explanations. Intelligent design is not science, it's religion, and it shouldn't be taught in science class."

The contentious Q&A lasted 25 minutes. When it was over, dozens of scientists rushed to the front to pelt Dembski with questions. The hubbub lasted so long that Sholom Lipskar of the Shul was pushed off the agenda.

btw..........Dembski is an acolyte of Francis Schaefer from way back.

0 Replies

Looking forward to seeing this programme, to air here tonight.

"The Root of All Evil?
[subtitles]
The God Delusion
Professor Richard Dawkins, Chair of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford and world-renowned evolutionary biologist, is no stranger to controversy. In this contentious two-part series, Dawkins decribes God as the most unpleasant fictional character of all and launches a wholehearted attack on religion as the cause for much of the pain and suffering in the world. "

Seems a reasonable viewpoint to me.

0 Replies

[quote[......but what? you don't want to argue with me? Or are you in agreement with my argument? [/quote]

I can't apologise Lola for making no response other than an acknowledgement to your fragrant contribution to this profound discussion because when I read it my bedtime had arrived.

I will study the post with an attention I reserve for feminine oracles later on today when my economic duties are completed but I'm not inclined to think it likely that I will agree with it all despite my natural inclination to do so.

I am rather hoping that you will stay a while though because this whole topic is much more concerned with the principles of femininity than the intelligent gentlemen on here seem prepared,or even able,to recognise.

See you later then-hopefully.

0 Replies

I'm afraid I caused parados some slight confusion with this remark

Quote:

That's a really wild,not to say ridiculous,assumption to make and no mistake.

"..and no mistake" is an Enlish expression made popular by the satirical magazine Private Eye.It serves simply as emphasis for what precedes it.I might have said instead "in seven no trumps" or ",being less poetic,"I can't emphasise that enough".The sense is not altered by omitting it.

I'm sorry for failing to allow for cultural incongruence.

Quote:

Perhaps I should have elaborated and said you have no truck with those that created rules of grammar too.

To keep it simple this time,that is false.I'm at work just now so I haven't my Fowler or my Partridge to hand but I would guess that your "that" ought to be "who".The "that" feels incorrect but it may well be alright.I would use "who" there.
In general though,language is forever moving and rules are there to be broken if a faster or deeper communication is facilitated thereby.The first principle of language is communication.That is why the vernacular of the soil is so much richer and rewarding than the sterile pedanticisms of the urban,scientific rigidities of the alienated intellectual or those of the legal establishment.Such things are an integral part of the debate on this thread.
But,as necessity necessitates,I over-simplify.

Quote:

What makes the act successful? Merely the fact that they acted? Your claim that Bush, Blair and Putin would be remembered is projecting that they were correct and an assumption that Dawkins wouldn't be.

Yes.The fact of acting is a Destiny.It matters not whether it was correct.Your,and my, conceptions were acts.Were they "correct"?One might just as easily discuss the Papal pronouncement which unleashed the witch persecutions from such a point of view.But the Pope (Innocent 111-I think) acted and the destiny of the act altered the whole of Western society for ever.

I agree that it is an opinion that Dawkins will soon be forgotten.His rhetoric may,at the very most,create a slight shift in significant attitudes but I doubt even that.Insignificant attitudes are what they sound like they are.

0 Replies

we often forget that Orthodox Jews, Hassids, and Lubovitchers are Creationists. Im glad that Dembski got his audience defined . Nothing is better than listening to a Jewish argument on science as seen from the perspective of Talmudic pronouncements'
FYI Dembski had published his own "manifesto going forward" He didnt expect, but planned for the outcome that did occur in Dover. Namely, he declared that the outcome where ID was not allowed to be taught AND was determined to be religion based would be the worst of all worlds but even that, said Dembski , would only be a minor setback since ID was expanding its arena to include the entire world. HE stated in his weblog
http://www.uncommondescent.com That

For one thing, ID is rapidly going international and crossing metaphysical and theological boundaries. The idea that ID is purely an ?American thing? can no longer be sustained. Interest is growing internationally and it will continue to grow regardless of the outcome of the trial. Also, ID is of great interest to college and graduate students, so these ideas will continue to be discussed.

But the most important thing to understand about this case is that the significance of a court case depends not merely on the judge?s decision but also on the cultural forces that serve as the backdrop against which the decision is made. Take the Scopes Trial. In most persons minds, it represents a decisive victory for evolution. And yet, in the actual trial, the decision went against Scopes (he was convicted of violating a Tennessee statute against teaching evolutionary theory).

Thanks for getting us back on topic Lola, it was getting to be like a herd of sheep without a Border Collie

0 Replies

Farmerman quoted an odd remark by Dembski that ID is going international, crossing "metaphysical and theological boundaries." I thought Dembski wanted ID to be considered science.

As far as going international, ID seems to be failing in Australia. The association of Australian scientists issued a statement that put ID on a par with flat earth theory. An education minister for one of Australia's provinces ruled that government schools will treat ID as a religious faith, not science.

0 Replies

wande wrote-

Quote:

As far as going international, ID seems to be failing in Australia. The association of Australian scientists issued a statement that put ID on a par with flat earth theory.

I saw that statement and it didn't have the credibility,if I remember correctly,that the term "Australian scientists" implies it did.I may be wrong though.

But Australia has large numbers of Asians these days and they are concentrated in certain areas.I suppose they have to take account of that.

0 Replies

Lola wrote-

Quote:

Sorry to come in with the over-riding argument again. If we were talking to rational beings, it would be sufficient. We are still talking about the fanciful idea of teaching ID as science, as opposed to religion, or comparative religion I suppose.

Such an argument,assuming we know what "rational " means or,even if we do,what value rationality has,will be swept aside by political imperatives and opportunism.

Judging from the next sentence it might look like "rational" means getting divorced from Lola.Is the book referred to a critique of the escape from reason or a recommendation?A rational man might say he was working on a book for months as a cover for carousing the bars and nightclubs of L'Abri and surrounding districts.That's pretty rational I'll admit.

Quote:

The essence of science is the search for the exception to the rule.

I cannot agree with that I'm afraid."Essence" is much too strong a term.Science is a tool with which to beat the Holy Fathers who were seen in Luther and Calvin's day as far too slack with the population not to say corrupt and complacent.The reformers sought to use the Church to exact more from the congregations on behalf of their own ambitions and of the Faustian project in general.Their modern day equivalents will have our noses to the grindstone full time either as producers or consumers."Shop till you drop" is a cliche in England and the stress,which leads to dreadful biological outcomes is managed by other scientists in the pharmaceutical industry.(A "buy" in most stockbrokers minds.)From science as the handmaid of theology to theology as the handmaid of science is the decisive epoch.
The essence of science is power.

The meaning of it all is that we have to work harder than our Middle-Ages counterparts.And at soul-destroying tasks and that we are all alone.But the book won't tell you that.

Quote:

What about religion, or intelligent design can be observed?

The effects on such things as happiness,sociability and dignity.You are all fortunate that you won't live to see and bear the effects of the eradication of religious feeling and faith.I suppose you could argue that sociology is not a science but others will say that it is the supreme science and is only at the phlogiston stage.

How's that Lola.You sound exactly like Harriet Martineau and she was receiving champagne from her admirers into her 60's.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know