Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Unlike you two, I state my opinion, but allow others to think what they will.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

If that is what you think…that is what you think. I think there ARE other differences…and I think if you are objective about it, you can come up with other differences yourself.

I suppose I could have worded it differently but I was hoping that you would get what I was meaning.

It seems to me when it comes to beliefs the #1 difference between a God and the things I listed is that the majority of people believe in a God and not the other things.
If you were born into a society that worshiped the sun as if it were God, it would be psychological for you to believe same and I suppose that if you had doubts and had no proof that the sun was the creator of the universe you may be agnostic about it but I doubt you are agnostic about it today.

Quote:

Is there a GOD (or are there gods) involved in the Reality of existence? Or is Edgar correct in saying: The existence of GOD or gods is an impossibility?

Anything might be possible given the knowledge to make it happen but the likely hood of it happening or being reality may very depending on the amount of complexity of what you are believing in.

I am sure there are things that exist that would blow our minds if we knew about them but why believe they exist until you have evidence for them?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I know the point is not trivial...appearances aside. It is the crux of the matter...and sets the stage for the discussion as it should be framed.

Too right. At that point grown ups can get involved.

While you were away Frank I asked the evolutionists to comment on Dr Conrad Murray having got 8 kids out of 5 different females. They were silent on the matter. They obviously daren't praise him for the feat as they really ought to have done, the Selfish Gene and all, because it would be unpopular (aaahh!!) and they daren't condemn him because we would all laugh.

I bet you also missed my being NFL Pick-um game champ 2 years running against 20 odd Yanks. At 2 attempts. I picked The Falcons tonight.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Is there a GOD (or are there gods) involved in the Reality of existence? Or is Edgar correct in saying: The existence of GOD or gods is an impossibility?

I don't believe I need a view about God or gods to live my life i.e. a belief in them or not is irrelevant.. apart from those who wish to be one, which is dangerous.

I believe reality appears but how do you define its existence? I need to understand your definition in order to move our discussion along further. Reality (as I see it) is in one sense what appears and these appearances are constantly changing i.e. they are impermanent. So, some would say reality doesn't have time to exist because it has no duration... yet it appears.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Spendius...the Falcons are kicking ass right now. Steelers seem unable to get out of their own way. I've been a Giants fan for over 50 years...and love 'em. They romped today...and all I can hope is for a good game in Green Bay next week.

Get back to you on that other stuff at some point.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Anything might be possible given the knowledge to make it happen but the likely hood of it happening or being reality may very depending on the amount of complexity of what you are believing in.

I am sure there are things that exist that would blow our minds if we knew about them but why believe they exist until you have evidence for them?

Didn't ask anything about "believing" in anything. Didn't ask what was "possible."

I did ask:

"Is there a GOD (or are there gods) involved in the Reality of existence?"

Seems that can be answered with a "yes", "no" or "I do not know."

But I accept you may not agree.

Any chance "yes", "no", or "I do not know" will do?

Same thing for the other part of the question:

"Or is Edgar correct in saying: The existence of GOD or gods is an impossibility?"

I'm not being a wise ass here...just trying to determine what you consider to be the correct answer to those questions.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

I don't believe I need a view about God or gods to live my life i.e. a belief in them or not is irrelevant.. apart from those who wish to be one, which is dangerous.

Not asking about what you "believe" or guess. (See above.)

Quote:

I believe reality appears but how do you define its existence? I need to understand your definition in order to move our discussion along further. Reality (as I see it) is in one sense what appears and these appearances are constantly changing i.e. they are impermanent. So, some would say reality doesn't have time to exist because it has no duration... yet it appears.

I don't know what the Reality is...but there must be an ultimate Reality even if the Reality is different for everyone...or a changing Reality.

Whatever the Reality is, however, either contains a GOD or gods...or no gods. (There may be other alternatives that are not apparent to us, but I ask that you disregard that possibility, which is not essential to my question.)

Is there a GOD or gods? If you can reduce your answer to "yes" "no" or "I do not know"...that would be great.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Obviously I transposed "Falcons" with "Broncos" in my last remarks.

Giants kicked ass on the Falcons.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

"Is there a GOD (or are there gods) involved in the Reality of existence?"

Seems that can be answered with a "yes", "no" or "I do not know."

I would say No. I arrived at that conclusion by not having any evidence of a God.
If a God could exist without having A God create it Why couldn't we just exist?

Quote:

"Or is Edgar correct in saying: The existence of GOD or gods is an impossibility?"

I think it could be possible if man were to live another trillion years and continue to advance scientifically man may be able to create some form of life on another planet that has never existed before or possibly create life similarly to the way that it naturally happens but with the aid of science.

Man would be the creator or the God.
I do not think that man would have complete control over his creation because the environment would be the ultimate controller.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

I hope Frank is not too hard on you rl. He and I have been to the School of Hard Knocks. You have that to come.

You can talk of another trillion years and scoff at the Elephant God. My, my, you're Mom is gentle with you.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

I hope Frank is not too hard on you rl. He and I have been to the School of Hard Knocks. You have that to come.

Are you trying to say that he too was educated on a bar stool? Drunk

I hope that I do not have that to come.

You know I am just kidding around Spendius Laughing

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

RL…thank you for your response. Obviously we are not going to resolve anything here, but it is fun to engage in some discussion on this subject and I appreciate you indulging me. I hope you enjoy it also.

You answered:

Quote:

I would say No. I arrived at that conclusion by not having any evidence of a God.

(I realize I am dealing with just part of your response, but this is the important part and we should treat it separately from the rest of the response.)

I find it surprising that you would prefer the answer “no” to “I do not know”…and I wonder about the reason you give for the preference of “no.”

It seems as though you are saying the default answer to a question where no evidence exists FOR something is that the thing does not exist. I don’t see the logic in that…and I’d like to discuss it for a bit.

Perhaps taking it to a different subject might make my point.

If I were to ask you: “Is there any sentient life on any planet circling the nearest ten stars to Sol?”…

…would you actually respond, “NO…and I arrived at that conclusion by not having any evidence that sentient life exists on any of those planets?”

Wouldn’t you think it more logical to respond, “I do not know?” In fact, wouldn’t you consider it illogical to reply, “NO…and I arrived at that conclusion by not having any evidence that sentient life exists on any of those planets?”

For certain we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any life exists on any of those planets…fact is, we don’t have any evidence that there are any planets circling those particular stars. We know planets circle some stars…and can infer that planets probably circle many stars (maybe even MOST stars), but making the jump to “there IS sentient life on any planets that may exist around those stars" is quite a stretch—and I doubt any reasonable person would make that stretch.

I also doubt any reasonable person would make the stretch in the other direction…that there are NO sentient beings on any of the planets that may be circling the nearest ten stars.

The only logical, reasonable answer to that question would be: “Beats the **** out of me”…wouldn’t you say?

“I don’t know” makes much more sense than “no” despite the lack of evidence. (If you disagree, we should discuss it.)

Even though there is no evidence the sentient life exists on those planets…to suggest the proper default would be to say, “Therefore NO sentient life does exist there”…is unreasonable and illogical.

Apply that thought to your response to my question about gods…and see if you come up with the same answer you did before. If you do, we can discuss it further.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I find it surprising that you would prefer the answer “no” to “I do not know”…and I wonder about the reason you give for the preference of “no.”

It seems as though you are saying the default answer to a question where no evidence exists FOR something is that the thing does not exist. I don’t see the logic in that…and I’d like to discuss it for a bit.

I am going to show you the logic soon.

Quote:

If I were to ask you: “Is there any sentient life on any planet circling the nearest ten stars to Sol?”…

…would you actually respond, “NO…and I arrived at that conclusion by not having any evidence that sentient life exists on any of those planets?”

Wouldn’t you think it more logical to respond, “I do not know?” In fact, wouldn’t you consider it illogical to reply, “NO…and I arrived at that conclusion by not having any evidence that sentient life exists on any of those planets?”

There is a huge difference between something that has been observed as being a reality in one place than something that has not ever been observed. If it can happen on this planet its probability of happening on another might be a little more likely than something happening that has never been observed, you know like purple unicorns with pink spots that have chocolate horns or even a more complex thing as a God.

Where do you draw your rational line in the sand? Is logic not a measurement of probability and when the probability is so remote is it wrong to call it what it is? very improbable. There may be purple unicorns with pink spots that have chocolate horns or even a more complex thing as a God and if there may be those, there may also be a spaghetti monster and what ever else you can not find evidence for. Where does this type of thinking stop?

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

You really don't understand the issues rl.

Human society is a fact. A large one in the modern world.

It is a fact that it has a choice between theism, atheism and agnosticism. A society of zombies will never think of these matters and will simply operate biologically.

It is a fact that whichever of those a society chooses will effect its way of life and its prospects. The choice of agnosticism leaves the door open for the promotion of theism and atheism and then the skill or power of the promotion, the spin, determines the choice between them.

What a theist privately thinks in an atheist society is of no account. As also what an atheist thinks in a theist society. An agnostic simply waits to see which marketing exercise prevails and the private view of an agnostic in either case is of no account. In the event of a choice being made between atheism and theism the powers that be will see challenges to the choice as destabilising and will bring to bear varying degrees of pressure to silence them depending upon the perceived risk to stability and prevailing attitudes to punishment. That applies in both theist and atheist societies.

It is a striking fact of modern life that atheist societies are more extreme in responding to theist challenge that theist societies are to the atheist challenge. Only an atheist has suggested on this thread, for example, that theists should be "retrained". I have seen no theist suggesting such an extreme measure for atheists. This thread is proof that the atheist position is easily tolerated by theists. No atheist meeting places or publications have been closed down by theists as they have been in atheist societies.

I can't see what you are arguing for. If you want an atheist society you should make the case for it. Continually wittering on about "evidence" and the idiocy of theists is fatuous. It's child's play.

If you want an atheist society say so and then tell us how to get there and what it will be like. Pretending that God/s are not intelligently designed in the service of society, or the power elite, is simply ridiculous. The evidence for the validity of the Christian God is the society you are living in. Now! It has nothing to do with the past struggles with these issues and the manner in which human beings conduct them.

And the Christian God was created by intelligence and science and the fact that you don't know why or how is not to be taken as proof that the intelligence and science involved was flawed. Religion is science operating on levels completely outside your intellectual range. Atheism is a religion as Frank points out.

Sell it to us. Then we can all be like you. Theologians don't manage individuals. They manage masses of them to survive and, hopefully, progress. When it comes to being progressive atheists are at the back of the queue. Your pink unicorn makes more sense. At least we might be guided by its revealed wisdom. What does atheism offer as a guide? Biology? Might? The Pentacle Queen? She Who Must Be Obeyed.

The distance to the nearest star is about 4.5x about 365x 24x60x60 x 186,282 about, miles away. It is an objective measure of scientific arrogance that such things are thought significant. That's the Pink Unicorn brigade imo. A pimple on a posh lady's bottom looms larger than that.

You are confusing private opinions with society's opinion.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

I am going to show you the logic soon.

I look forward to that, RL.

Quote:

There is a huge difference between something that has been observed as being a reality in one place than something that has not ever been observed. If it can happen on this planet its probability of happening on another might be a little more likely than something happening that has never been observed…

Okay…but I did not ask about the probability of it happening…or about its likelihood.

I asked specifically if it is happening right now on planets circling the nearest stars to our own. And the logical, rational answer to that question appears to be: I do not know. The point of the exercise is not to determine whether there are sentient beings there or not…obviously we do not know. We were merely testing the comment you made that you have concluded there are no gods because there is no evidence for them.

My contention is that using “I therefore conclude there are none” as the default for a situation in which you have no evidence for a thing…is illogical. I am arguing that it is more logical to use “I do not know.”

Perhaps the question ought to be asked, “Why the reluctance to acknowledge that you do not know the answer to the question about sentient life on nearby planets?”

We could go from there to try to figure out why the reluctance to acknowledge that you do not know the answer to the question about what has to be excluded from possibility in the Reality of existence.

By the way, you mentioned “There is a huge difference between something that has been observed as being a reality in one place than something that has not ever been observed.”

Two things come to mind:

One…there are many things that cannot be observed that very well may exist. Some, to my mind, seem even more bizarre than the notion of gods.

Two…there is a huge difference between saying “I conclude therefore that it does not exist” and “who knows, it might possibly exist and might possibly not exist.”

The “probability” and “measures of probability” on this issue are not logical arguments at all. The theists argue the probability and likelihood of gods are great…the atheists argue the probability and likelihood of no gods is great…and both are making gratuitous, self-serving assessments of the “evidence.”

Quote:

Where does this type of thinking stop?

My sentiments exactly!

0 Replies

@spendius,

Spendius, that was a brilliant post and I agree with damn near everything you mentioned.

One small correction that I consider important. You wrote:

Quote:

Atheism is a religion as Frank points out.

I never refer to atheism as a "religion." I specifically refer to it (specifically classical atheism) as a "belief system," which many suppose to be synonymous with religion. I think there is a difference--and I think the difference to be significant. ,

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

"A" belief system? Aren't there many belief systems that lead people to disbelieve in gods? For example, I don't believe in gods because I'm an empiricist, and because I'm finding the empirical evidence for gods too weak to justify belief in any of them. Other people don't believe in gods because they're Buddhists, and gods play no role in their religion. Same conclusion about gods, totally different belief systems.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

"A" belief system? Aren't there many belief systems that lead people to disbelieve in gods? For example, I don't believe in gods because I'm an empiricist, and because I'm finding the empirical evidence for gods too weak to justify belief in any of them. Other people don't believe in gods because they're Buddhists, and gods play no role in their religion. Same conclusion about gods, totally different belief systems.

Of course there are belief systems that lead people to "disbelieve in gods."

Some people believe there are gods; some people believe there are no gods. Both are systems of belief--just belief headed in different directions.

Are you of the mistaken opinion that "belief" and "faith" apply in only one direction?

Edgar, for instance, "believes" strongly that there are no gods...in fact, that there cannot possibly be gods. He has absolute faith in those "beliefs."

No inconsistency or incongruity here that I see, Thomas.

0 Replies

"Atheism is a religion like not-collecting-stamps is a hobby" (I stole that quote from somebody, not sure who)

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

That's not true. Collecting stamps or not collecting stamps has no bearing on matters relating to rumpy-pumpy. Atheism has a direct and profound bearing on that subject. One supposes that if some people don't collect stamps it would have little or no effect on military strategy or economic organisation whereas atheism does if it catches on.

Not collecting stamps is about as significant as not wearing a hat or not going about dressed as an ostrich. These debates are quite sufficient proof that not being an atheist is significant.

One might feel less sanguine about leaving one's wife or one's daughter alone with the average atheist than one would with the average non-collector of stamps. I don't think it would be held against a presidential candidate that he didn't collect stamps but I read that Americans would elect a monkey president rather than an atheist.

It's an absurd comparison made to impress the noggins of the segment of the IQ range between about 75 and 85.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know