Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Spendius, that was a brilliant post....

Thank you Frank. I wouldn't normally acknowledge such a thing said about me if it wasn't for the fact that it's a first in the long history of this thread that ordure and obloquay has not been heaped upon my head.

You needn't "refer" to something directly for me to know you have pointed it out.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

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

There is not a creator god. I don't know if there are sentient beings that could be classed as 'gods' due to being 'super human' but if there are they will not be able to create a universe.

Both concepts to me are irrelevant unless the belief of theists, impacts on my life or others in a negative way.

2 Replies

@igm,

Do you think theism impacts on your life?

2 Replies

@spendius,

Due to the interconnectedness of everything the beliefs' of theists must have some effect on my life. I'm only interested if it is a negative impact and then only if it's impact requires my attention. That's not the case at present.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Also... I prefer this position to the agnostic's position. Surely, the stating point must be: doubt everything then as the evidence comes in move from that position.

What do you think... Frank!?

2 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

There is not a creator god.

Of that you are certain?

Quote:

I don't know if there are sentient beings that could be classed as 'gods' due to being 'super human' but if there are they will not be able to create a universe.

Well...no telling how far sentient beings can go in their evolution...but if it is an infinite universe...and if time is infinite (both are possible)...then getting so powerful they cannot be distinguished from gods is not improbable. They MAY be able to create micro-universes.

So I ask, are you certain of this also?

By the way, I read a paper a while back that suggests all evolved societies would be considered "god-like" to ancient civilizations. I imagine if we could transport a Neanderthal to present day, it wouldn't be too hard to imagine him/her thinking us to be gods. In fact, the people of only 2000 years ago might think us gods...the limits of their imagination actually had the gods they worshiped with lesser and fewer powers than we have. And the progression seems to be geometric.

Imagine what will be 2000 years from now. (If we do not destroy ourselves!)

1 Reply

@igm,

Excellent !. I wonder what agnostics do when placed on a jury? Religious beliefs are a "preponderance of evidence" issue that just doesnt have any evidence at all , and in fact , the questions always include, "Of which religion and deity are you speaking?".

Its like looking for the end of a non-repeating decimal and believing it exists when all about testifies to the contrary

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Also... I prefer this position to the agnostic's position. Surely, the stating point must be: doubt everything then as the evidence comes in move from that position.

What do you think... Frank!

This sounds very interesting, but I am not sure what you are asking. What position (as opposed to the agnostic position) are you referencing? Could you give me a better picture of what you mean by "doubt everything..."

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Thanks for stopping by, Farmerman.

Quote:

Excellent !. I wonder what agnostics do when placed on a jury?

I've been on juries...and I suppose most agnostics do what I did...which was what atheists and theists do when on juries. Listen to the testimony...and make as informed a decision as possible.

Quote:

Religious beliefs are a "preponderance of evidence" issue that just doesnt have any evidence at all , and in fact , the questions always include, "Of which religion and deity are you speaking?".

Exactly...which, of course, is also what the classical atheist's position is. There are no gods; there is no possibility of gods. No evidence for that either!

Quote:

Its like looking for the end of a non-repeating decimal and believing it exists when all about testifies to the contrary

"Believing" either way makes no sense to me. If you want to blindly guess there is a God...or if you want to blindly guess there are no gods...do so. Nothing wrong with guessing. But if you are going to fancy up the blind guess by calling it a belief (or disbelief, which is really just believing in the other direction)...then it does not make sense to me.

4 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

igm wrote:

There is not a creator god.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Of that you are certain?

Yes, but it may take some time to explain... (and it depends on my definition of what a 'creator god' is.)

Frank Apisa wrote:

I don't know if there are sentient beings that could be classed as 'gods' due to being 'super human' but if there are they will not be able to create a universe.

Well...no telling how far sentient beings can go in their evolution...but if it is an infinite universe...and if time is infinite (both are possible)...then getting so powerful they cannot be distinguished from gods is not improbable. They MAY be able to create micro-universes.

So I ask, are you certain of this also?

By the way, I read a paper a while back that suggests all evolved societies would be considered "god-like" to ancient civilizations. I imagine if we could transport a Neanderthal to present day, it wouldn't be too hard to imagine him/her thinking us to be gods. In fact, the people of only 2000 years ago might think us gods...the limits of their imagination actually had the gods they worshiped with lesser and fewer powers than we have. And the progression seems to be geometric.

Imagine what will be 2000 years from now. (If we do not destroy ourselves!)

Thanks for your reply to point two about 'non-creator gods' but surely we agree on this... we both don't know. I am certain that I don't know... and that you don't know either.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Also... I prefer this position to the agnostic's position. Surely, the stating point must be: doubt everything then as the evidence comes in move from that position.

What do you think... Frank!

This sounds very interesting, but I am not sure what you are asking. What position (as opposed to the agnostic position) are you referencing? Could you give me a better picture of what you mean by "doubt everything..."

Literally... as a starting point take the position of doubting everything... start with fundamentals as other beliefs will depend on those and can be refuted as a consequence of the initial refutation.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Literally... as a starting point take the position of doubting everything... start with fundamentals as other beliefs will depend on those and can be refuted as a consequence of the initial refutation.

Okay...so if I were to "doubt" the assertion "there are no creator gods"...I would have to default to "there is a creator god" and see if evidence comes along to refute it????

Why is "I do not know if there are gods or no gods" not a better option?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Also... e.g. start by not believing in a god or gods... then move from that position... if evidence to the contrary requires one to move to be 'open minded' then move to that position i.e. agnosticism ... if certainty arises then move to theism.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Thanks for your reply to point two about 'non-creator gods' but surely we agree on this... we both don't know. I am certain that I don't know... and that you don't know either.

I'm an agnostic...I know I do not know, but do not know that you do not know. I suspect you do not know...but there is no way I can know you do not know. I am prepared to take your word for it, though.

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

Also... e.g. start by not believing in a god or gods... then move from that position... if evidence to the contrary requires one to move to be 'open minded' then move to that position i.e. agnosticism ... if certainty arises then move to theism.

But you are assuming that "there is a god" is the only assertion being made...which is not so. Read Edgar's remarks of earlier. He asserts there are no gods...and that it is not possible for there to be gods.

If I start by "not believing that"...I am left with"believing" there are gods...and then would have to move from that position by evidence.

You do see that, do you not?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Literally... as a starting point take the position of doubting everything... start with fundamentals as other beliefs will depend on those and can be refuted as a consequence of the initial refutation.

Okay...so if I were to "doubt" the assertion "there are no creator gods"...I would have to default to "there is a creator god" and see if evidence comes along to refute it????

Why is "I do not know if there are gods or no gods" not a better option?

... because you have already moved from not having any concept at all to having a concept that you must not come down on the side of two concepts you originally didn't hold. The default is not what you say it is... it is I have no position I'll wait for evidence before I hold one or the other positions if there isn't any I won't have a concept about it at all i.e. the third option...

Your other posts to me I'll look at along with any replies... but it will have to be tomorrow...

1 Reply

@igm,

Igm…let’s take this slowly.

Since I have entered this discussion with you…only one assertion regarding the existence or non-existence of god or gods has been made…and it was made by you.

The assertion was: There is no creator god.

Following your advice, I would have to default to “there is a creator god”…and wait for evidence to refute that.

Atheists often want the only assertions to be the assertions of theists. They even try to offer a definition of atheism that pretends that no assertion is being made from the atheistic side.

But that is not so. By doing what you are suggesting to the perceived theistic assertion “there is a god” you are defaulting to the position “there are no gods.”

I am saying that the agnostic position “I do not know” is superior from a logical and rational standpoint.

I would say that same thing if a theist were arguing that because an atheist like Edgar asserts “there are no gods; no possibility of gods”…I should default to “there are gods.”

The suggestion truly makes no sense to me…and seem contrived so as not to have to acknowledge agnosticism.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Due to the interconnectedness of everything the beliefs' of theists must have some effect on my life. I'm only interested if it is a negative impact and then only if it's impact requires my attention. That's not the case at present.

I assume you don't give theism any credit for the fantastic lifestyle you lead and the bonanza of over-the-moon indulgencies you enjoy? It sound like you think it is something growing on a tree in your yard which is a bit of a nuisance now and again.

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

Also... I prefer this position to the agnostic's position. Surely, the stating point must be: doubt everything then as the evidence comes in move from that position.

It's odd how love goes in the opposite direction. I don't have such a suspicious nature. When I meet a lady for the first time I trust her absolutely cross my heart and hope to die.

The only evidence for God is how efficiently He has performed in very trying circumstances compared to anything previously known. Who else has pubs and lingerie except God's chosen ones. That's us.

The thing to do is enjoy it and not bother keep measuring up the evidence. Where are you trying to take us to for ****'s sake?

God likes being prayed to. He's not bothered what the content is. Being prayed to is the thing. He rewards all that praying.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I've been on juries...and I suppose most agnostics do what I did...which was what atheists and theists do when on juries. Listen to the testimony...and make as informed a decision as possible.

Now you are on a jury trying to determine the probabilities of a God existing compared to a purple unicorn with pink spots and a chocolate horn. We have never seen either one but it does not mean neither can not exist correct.

I guess the best thing to say is that we do not know and be agnostic about it.

Why would you have to be a jack ass to believe that there is a possibility or that we do not know for certain that a live purple unicorn with pink spots and a chocolate horn exist but you do not have to be a jack ass to not know for certain a God exist?
Is it because other people believe in a God? or could it be a more reasonable thing to think as possible. Exactly what is it that makes a god uncertain but a live purple unicorn with pink spots and a chocolate horn certain of not existing if this is how you see it?

2 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know