Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

The only reason C and D are more likely by my judgment is because (1) A is absolute, and therefore must meet the challenges of resolving all inconsistencies whereas (2) C and D have the potential to explain an absence of evidence found today of a god. I don't dismiss the idea of god, I'm actually quite fond of the idea frankly, but intellectually, I must agree that B is the most likely of the four. One does not have to prove something does not exist.

If you want to think “God does not exist anymore” or “God does not exist yet” makes more sense than “God exists”...go ahead and think it. Some people think they can train a pig to whistle Dixie...and there are no rules here in A2K that you have to be rational.

Sounds to me, though, that you are guy who guesses there are no gods...and who wants to pretend that doing so makes more sense than someone who guesses there is a God.

It doesn't.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

c.i.

I will agree. Your concept is simple!

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

This is what Ayn Rand ended up doing, supposedly the consummate objectivist. She revealed herself finally as a theist and then proceeded to devise some "new religion" out of a patchwork of different religions but it's essence was Greek and Egyptian polytheism.

I just believe that ID is a poor semantic, general or otherwise, to begin with -- we do not all have the level of intelligence to understand the "intelligent" part, (comma Smile

) but some of our best scientific minds have come uncomfortably close to the truth for those of devout faith. They are often vehement (a word often misspelled Smile

) about what they perceive as scientists attempting to shatter their faith. Just another egotism like belief that the Earth is the center of the Universe and I don't think you want to take too seriously how many are in that arena. Americans have fickle minds depending on their demography -- they'll believe the mob before they'd believe any objective, logical, reasonable concept.

May Shiva leave us alone until after we've made the planet uninhabitable.

On, wait (fill in the blank).

BTW, if anyone is worried about their spelling, the Google bar has a button for spell check (as this site no longer does, and it was inadequate to recognize forms of words).

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I'll agree with you about the two not being philosophically incompatible. I think the most intellectually honest and humble statement RE nature is (and I can't remember who posted it)...

[paraphrased] "Science doesn't refute the claims of God's role in the universe, science simply does not require God to explain the universe."

Or something to that effect. I think this is the most reasonable. There are certainly human misunderstandings of nature, and gaps yet to be filled, but the presence of those gaps slowly closes as we learn more about our universe (and even postulate about other universes and realities). For any detail in nature, we can give credit to a natural driver or a supernatural one. The only reason to conclude on a supernatural one is because no possible natural one can exist. Why we so quickly default to divinity when we don't understand things may be understandable, but it doesn't make it true.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Ill let you take a last hit at me and then Ill just ignore your ramblings Frank, that is unless you finally "get it"

You do whatever it takes to get you out of this hole you are digging, Farmerman.

If you say something stupid (which you do often)...I will comment.

Quote:

"ACtual agnosticism is imbued with "I dont know and I really dont care".

This is even further from reality than usual. You must have had help thinking this **** up.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

We also have the technology to analyze fossils beyond the imagination of Darwin or of most scientist up through the end of the last century. Those "scientists" shills who testified at Dover and put themselves on the list (presumably to quiet down the discord of "God is Dead," which is a journalistic gizmo) don't want to even address any of the DNA fossil evidence of the new century. In\t makes "Of Pandas and People" read like "Dick and Jane."

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

The contents of a ping-pong ball are far more difficult to describe than what Mr Darwin has left us with.

I could never describe the contents of a ping-pong ball in "several" paragraphs unless I used very long paragraphs and stretched the meaning of "several" way beyond its accepted usage. What is inside a ping-pong ball is a very complex arrangement of matter. Some would say irreducibly so. And that is when it is stationary. At NTP.

I once saw a lady knock some skittles over with a ping-pong ball with a very unusual delivery mechanism. I'll accept that she might have tried it a number of times and her most successful attempt was the one the director of the movie chose to show us.

I was wrong, spendi. It took you only 3 paragraphs to describe the contents of a ping pong ball. It would have taken you several paragraphs if you added allusions to Flaubert, Joyce, or DeSade (as is your custom).

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Why we so quickly default to divinity when we don't understand things may be understandable, but it doesn't make it true.

Agreed!

But it doesn't make it false either!

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I guess you dont get it.
Getting out of a discussion with you is merely recognizing that your head doesnt seem to be in the sunlight on this issue.

It appears that continued arrogance and brutishness is your way to assert your points. I prefer discussions with people who can provide some light . If you wish to keep on this subject about "The possibilitiy of gods" directing evolution (you must realioze how vapid that sounds), then you can snuggle up with spendi.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, The basic problem that you have is that you cannot let go of religion.

Religions are a man-made concept to answer the many questions we have about our reality. That's the attraction of all religions.

You just cannot let it go; you continue to ask us to answer your questions that has no evidence, because it's based on faith; nothing more.

Once you are a "believer," it's almost impossible to let go. That's why humans are attracted to it.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

If one can't see it, feel it, taste it, hear it (there's actually even more monkeys available), you should doubt it or even reject it as really not worth thinking about. We're "speaking about it" but we do have some inquisitive minds on A2K that know that thinking is entertainment. However, some write feverish essays when in reality they are not thinking about it. I won't mention names.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
The only reason C and D are more likely by my judgment is because (1) A is absolute, and therefore must meet the challenges of resolving all inconsistencies whereas (2) C and D have the potential to explain an absence of evidence found today of a god. I don't dismiss the idea of god, I'm actually quite fond of the idea frankly, but intellectually, I must agree that B is the most likely of the four. One does not have to prove something does not exist.

If you want to think “God does not exist anymore” or “God does not exist yet” makes more sense than “God exists”...go ahead and think it. Some people think they can train a pig to whistle Dixie...and there are no rules here in A2K that you have to be rational.

What is irrational about what I wrote? If the most powerful entity in the universe is not observable and measurable to me right now, then I certainly can feel it less likely than the possibility that the reason is god is not present. God not being present does not rule out the potential that god has existed at one time, or may yet exist. Both ideas are more congruent with the absence of the require evidence needed to prove that a god exists.

I'm a scientist. I'm going to be convinced by empirical evidence. I'm often quite moved by notions of god, fate, or 3rd party interaction in our universe, but I simply don't require a god to understand the universe. I am perfectly content accepting those gaps in science because each time one closes it is so exciting. I need not feel insecure about their presence. History suggests that science is converging on a natural universe.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Sounds to me, though, that you are guy who guesses there are no gods...and who wants to pretend that doing so makes more sense than someone who guesses there is a God.

It doesn't.

I don't need to guess, nor pretend that these views are stalemated. The evidence sides with a natural universe.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I guess you dont get it.
Getting out of a discussion with you is merely recognizing that your head doesnt seem to be in the sunlight on this issue.

It appears that continued arrogance and brutishness is your way to assert your points. I prefer discussions with people who can provide some light . If you wish to keep on this subject about "The possibilitiy of gods" directing evolution (you must realioze how vapid that sounds), then you can snuggle up with spendi.

Well...your resolve to give me the last word didn't last very long!

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Well said, Diest; science continues to grow which in turn allows us to understand our universe better, but religion and gods are stagnant.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Frank, The basic problem that you have is that you cannot let go of religion.

Religions are a man-made concept to answer the many questions we have about our reality. That's the attraction of all religions.

You just cannot let it go; you continue to ask us to answer your questions that has no evidence, because it's based on faith; nothing more.

Once you are a "believer," it's almost impossible to let go. That's why humans are attracted to it.

Well...you are a "believer"....and obviously you ARE having lots of trouble letting go.

I have no problem letting go of religion...I just don't want to adopt a new belief in place of old ones.

You apparently are not smart enough to avoid that mistake.

So go on being a "believer!"

2 Replies

In\t makes "Of Pandas and People" read like "Dick and Jane."

Well, I don't know how that happened! Pardon me!

It makes (and so forth).

(My Mom was talking in my right ear about replacing the broken big screen and what flat screen I advised to buy while The Today Show is blaring in the background because she has misplaced her hearing aids).

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You haven't replaced anything! You still want to believe in a god and ID; those are the tenants of religion.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Look...you seem to be trying to rationalize your personal flavor of atheism.

Atheism...stripped of all the bullshit...is merely guessing in the opposite direction of theism.

Stick with your rationalizations...but if you want to put them out here for examination...they are going to be examined.

And if you are saying there are no gods...you are essentially saying that you KNOW what the Reality of existence IS. You KNOW what is included in that Reality...and you KNOW what is absent.

MY GUESS: You don't KNOW any more about Reality than I do!

You just are unwilling to acknowledge that...and you seem to be compulsive about making a guess (in your case, in the direction that there are no gods.)

Do it! But if you are going to try to sell the idea that you are not guessing...blindly guessing, at that...it is going to be one hell of a hard sell here.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

You haven't replaced anything! You still want to believe in a god and ID; those are the tenants of religion.

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know