97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
igm
 
  1  
Mon 9 Jan, 2012 04:54 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

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.


Sorry Frank... you've lost me. My advice was don't have 'any' concept concerning theism or atheism. Then wait for evidence. Then move towards one or the other. I have moved towards the position from that starting point to a position that there is no creator god. You have moved to a position of agnostism based on no conclusive evidence against theism... this is not the advice I gave and in my opinion shows to some extent 'black & white' thinking. Which I believe is not superior to my approach because you hold your position without evidence and won't hold the opposite position which doesn't need evidence.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Mon 9 Jan, 2012 04:54 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:
I guess the best thing to say is that we do not know and be agnostic about it.


Everyone, absolutely everyone is agnostic. There are no theists who have knowledge that a god exists. If they had knowledge they wouldn't need faith. If they had knowledge they wouldn't use extremely poor arguments to try and prove their delusions. Everyone is agnostic weather they admit to it or not, because no one knows if a god exists. If someone has knowledge that a god exists, bring them here to prove it.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Mon 9 Jan, 2012 05:28 pm
@Krumple,
I am agnostic about many things but I try not to allow it to suggest that the concepts that man has made up can not be simply made up when there is overwhelming evidence for this to be the case with Gods
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 9 Jan, 2012 05:40 pm
@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.

If its a criminal case, you are one of a number of jurists who, if presented the evidence must decide beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whats to lose by being without a god? Agnosticism seems to be a apoint of honor with you, (I think weve heard this for years from your keyboard). I still dont understand the importance of your position in this, a discussion in defense of evolution as opposed to the clearly religious view of ID "Theory". It is only relevant if you are a believer in a creator, or that somehow, the possibility of a god being will cause you some kind of harm..
Id say that a minority of Christians, maybe 10+% actually believe in a personal intervening god, most believe that its a transcendent being. Most scientists who profess faith belive in a transcendent being who is totallyout of the life loop. Ken Millers own apologeia summariseshis belief quite well,

Miller states that,there may or may not be a God, he chooses to believe because he feels that the chance that God exists is important to him. Then he moves on to discussions in science. A comment of mine----" belief is when a deity can do something for you or to you". ButWhat'v you got to lose ?, youve outlived what the avg life expectancy was in the early 20th century. (Mostly not thanks to any "god" but to works and evidence produced by medical science). In fact Gods reps are presently stalwartly defending their right to prevent use of natal tissues for possible medical breakthroughs
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 9 Jan, 2012 05:43 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
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.
Youve confused "belief" with "arriving at a conclusion".
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 9 Jan, 2012 05:58 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
ButWhat'v you got to lose ?, youve outlived what the avg life expectancy was in the early 20th century. (Mostly not thanks to any "god" but to works and evidence produced by medical science). In fact Gods reps are presently stalwartly defending their right to prevent use of natal tissues for possible medical breakthroughs.


But that is just one way of spinning it.

Isn't medical science a product of Christianity? Our medical science I mean. The atheists in Classical times could have cleaned up with bloody acetylsalicylic acid for ****'s sake never mind lysergic acid diethylamide. What was holding them back?

And Christians are in favour of the use of natal tissues for possible medical breakthroughs as long as it's safe and holds no risk of funny stuff in amoral hands.

You ******* lie man and it's about time you realised it.
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 9 Jan, 2012 06:04 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Isn't medical science a product of Christianity? Our medical science I mean. The atheists in Classical times could have cleaned up with bloody acetylsalicylic acid for ****'s sake never mind lysergic acid diethylamide.
If you say that worship of Ahkenaten was the precursor to Christianity (which it wasnt) then mthe concept pf surgery was born.The Greeks and non Christain Romans understood more than subsequent Christian doctors . The Midieval period of Europe was not exactly "friendly" to medical examination or even anatomy.

Aspirin was merelt distilled from willow bark which was in use as a pain reliever by bronze age Eastern Europeans and non- Christian Native AMericans. Seems that your discussion deflates a bit.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Mon 9 Jan, 2012 06:10 pm
@spendius,
Quote:

Isn't medical science a product of Christianity? Our medical science I mean.


I thought that it is a product of all people. Are you suggesting that only Christians have contributed to the cause? Come on Spendius you know better than that.
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 9 Jan, 2012 06:19 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
Everyone is agnostic weather they admit to it or not, because no one knows if a god exists. If someone has knowledge that a god exists, bring them here to prove it.


I proved it years ago on this thread using a materialist argument. I can't be expected to do it all over again for every Johnny-come-lately who trots out that banal argument.

It's to do with a thought being a material object and thought radiations being detectable with electrodes attached to the conk. Crude electrodes as yet. And the power of unified thoughts like when a footballer incites the crowd to generate intensity to make him stronger.

Or when focussed in a church service.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 9 Jan, 2012 06:21 pm
@reasoning logic,
I don't know better that that rl. Enlighten me.
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 9 Jan, 2012 06:26 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Aspirin was merelt distilled from willow bark which was in use as a pain reliever by bronze age Eastern Europeans and non- Christian Native AMericans. Seems that your discussion deflates a bit.


Not a bit. It wasn't over the counter on every street of shops at 2 cents a pop.

Are you denying that our science is not a product of Christianity? If so explain why nobody else ever got close.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Mon 9 Jan, 2012 06:39 pm
@spendius,
How many years has the advancement of neurosurgery been set back because of the ban that the church put on it? Is it a few hundred? Why do you think they did it? Sure the church did produce some surgeons but what do you expect when they have a monopoly on social engineering?

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/brain/history/index.html
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 9 Jan, 2012 07:28 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Are you denying that our science is not a product of Christianity? If so explain why nobody else ever got close
To "deny" would give creedence to your stupid and silly assertion. I suggest that you start some more intensive reading of istory of science and stop all this Christian apolagist bullshit. JEEZUS H CHRISE but you are one busted record.

Quote:
explain why nobody else ever got close
. Really? what are your metrics on this dumass statement?
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Mon 9 Jan, 2012 08:10 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
I don't know better that that rl. Enlighten me.


Start with this Spendius and see what you might find.

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Mon 9 Jan, 2012 09:08 pm
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
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.


Okay…but keep in mind that earlier you asked about my agnosticism…and there was a hell of a lot more to my agnosticism than just “I do not know.” Read my explanation again and you will see.

Then ask me any questions you want to ask.

Quote:
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?


For the same reason I would have to be a jackass to believe there is a possibility or that I do not know for certain that a prxyczbrezt with two horns does or does not exits. Because I just made the prxyczbrezt with two horns up for the purposes of this discussion between atheists and agnostics. There is no attempt to deal with the question of “What is the nature of the Reality of existence?” It is just something made up to fudge the issue…like the flying spaghetti monsters and purple accountants possibly working on a moon of Saturn the atheists make up to fudge the actual discussion occurring.

I can make a reasonable GUESS about some things…but I CANNOT MAKE A REASONABLE guess about the true nature of the Reality of existence. So I cannot include or exclude the possibility of gods.


Quote:
Is it because other people believe in a God? or could it be a more reasonable thing to think as possible.


No…it has to do with what I just said.

Quote:
I think I have now covered that. Can we get off the absurd and deal with the question: Is there a god or are there gods involved in the Reality of existence?


If you don’t know….why not simply say, “I do not know?”
Eorl
 
  1  
Mon 9 Jan, 2012 10:03 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Be careful "reasoning logic".

Frank singlehandedly converted me from an "Atheist" into an "Agnostic With Extremely Atheistic Tendencies" and now I can't seem to find my way back!
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2012 02:15 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
If you don’t know….why not simply say, “I do not know?”


It would be like saying you do not know about the likely hood of the unicorn existing. You have good reason not to even consider the possibility just as you have science and history that points to a God being a man made concept.

That is why many people do not simply say "I do not know," same reason you do not simply say "I do not know" about the unicorn because it seems illogical to do so.
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2012 05:33 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
. Really? what are your metrics on this dumass statement?


The historical record. Documents, artefacts.

You're heckling again fm. No meaning in your post. If you can't read Spengler what am I supposed to do? I've taken you through it before in broad brush. You put it on Ignore. The Bigot Button.

y=(f)x.

The Bishop of Brixen. (1450). I think Spengler has it wrong when he said that it was "an instinct that guided Nicolaus Cusanus from the idea of the unendingness of God in nature to the elements of the Infinitesimal Calculus."

I think the Bish got the idea from the Gospel of Luke. Jesus on the lightning flash comparison which, at the time, was high treason. Pythagoras had been persecuted.

Quote:
Leibniz himself, who two centuries later definitely settled the methods and notation of the Calculus, was led by purely metaphysical speculations about the divine principle and its relation to infinite extent to conceive and develop the notion of an analysis situs---probably the most inspired of all interpretations of pure and emancipated space---the possibilities of which were to be developed later by Grassmann in his Ausdebnungslebre and above all by Riemann, their real creator, in his symbolism of two-sided planes representative of the nature of equations. And Kepler and Newton, strictly religious natures both, were and remained convinced, like Plato, that it was precisely through the medium of number that they had been able to apprehend intuitively the essence of the divine world order.


Dawkins ain't science. Darwin ain't science. The NCSE ain't science. You're flattering yourself fm. You're powdering your nose and straightening your seams. Geology isn't science. Every technique of geology rests on the science of the Christian project.

Grassmann was the son of a minister of religion and studied theology at university. Liebniz's father was a professor of moral philosophy.

And compare the architecture of cultures. What a difference between a cathedral, a light machine, and a mosque. Or a totem pole. Listen to Bach sometime. Study Rembrandt.

That straw man of yours that Christianity is holding us back is so vast that if you took it to bits and sold it off the bottom would drop out of straw futures.

And you have ducked the question, again, of driving moderate Islamic opinion into the hands of extremists by promoting an opinion they will never embrace.

And your posts are infantile. Blather, blurt and bombast. You might cow your neighbours but you won't cow me.

I think primitive savagery is ahead of atheism. And 93% of Americans believe in "something". And 10% of them approve of the secular Congress.
McTag
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2012 05:42 am
@Frank Apisa,

My goodness, I don't think I've seen Frank Apisa since way back then.

How you doin' there, Frank?
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2012 05:48 am
@reasoning logic,
I don't do infotainment rl. A bunch of bloody actors poncing about with an authoritative, deep toned voiceover to keep the couchies spellbound with the idea of how ******* intelligent they are and sandwiched between ads for bog-roll and weed killer.

Give us a break eh?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 01/22/2025 at 07:06:54