97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2012 11:28 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
His belief is unwavering, and really, as atheists, why should we care? cause we dont waste any thinking time with that "controversy".


I tend to agree fm but there is always the possibility that something useful might emerge. You shouldn't rule it out.

It's all a waste of time if you refuse the social consequences question.
igm
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2012 11:29 am
@Frank Apisa,
Thanks Frank... I'm building up a picture from your responses... so to speak.

Frank Apisa wrote:

What “certainties” do you have?


No positive certainties only negative ones... e.g. there is no proof nor can there be, that a creator god exists. This is the absence of a belief in a creator god.

Frank Apisa wrote:
... Why are you suggesting that there is something wrong with my acknowledging that I do not know the answers to some questions? Why are you suggesting that I ought somehow to stop doing that?

The word 'agnostic' is superfluous. If I come to a fork in the road and I'm not sure which to take I think to myself 'I don't know which road to take'. I don't make up a word to stand for my indecision. For that reason to define oneself as an 'agnostic' is not required... just the statement 'I don't know' is all that's required when asked if there are any deities. If we had to make words up for every time time we thought 'I don't know' ... well life's to short isn't it?
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2012 11:33 am
@spendius,
One of the problems with this format is that newbies arrive from time to time with those simple and banal ideas which newbies before them have raised and which have been dealt with.
igm
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2012 11:39 am
@spendius,
The words 'theist' and 'atheist' stand for something the word 'agnostic' does not. Philosophy can ponder the first two the third is a non sequitur.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2012 12:10 pm
@Thomas,

Quote:
What do you do when you're inside a New Jersey farmhouse, and you hear hoofs pounding the floor outside?


Never have had it happen to be honest, but I guess I’d wonder why a horse is in the house pounding on the floor. More than likely, I would open a door to see how the horse got in.

Quote:
Do you believe there are horses out in the yard? Or do you believe they are zebras?


I would not “believe” either. If I were forced to make a guess, it would be that the sound was coming from a radio or television, because “hoof beats pounding on the floor” are really not all that common in New Jersey. But most likely, I would be curious enough to go take a look rather than making a guess.

Quote:
Do you believe that, in addition to the horses (or zebras), there's a flying spaghetti monster hovering above the farm inaudibly?


No, Thomas, I do not do any “believing” at all.

Quote:
Do you refuse to believe any of the three, remaining truly agnostic until you get a look at them? How would you react?


I would go check on the source of the noise.

But if I were asked by someone in the room, “What is making that sound?”…I would answer, “I do not know.”

Hope that answers all your questions.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2012 12:26 pm
@igm,
In response to my question, “What certainties do you have?” you responded:


Quote:
No positive certainties only negative ones... e.g. there is no proof nor can there be, that a creator god exists. This is the absence of a belief in a creator god.


Well I agree that there doesn’t seem to be any proof that a creator god exists, but I defy you to show that “nor can there be” is logical.

In any case, the only certainty you are offering here is: You are certain you have an absence of belief in a creator god.

Fine.

Quote:
The word 'agnostic' is superfluous.


Wow. And what would you say if I suggested the word “atheist” is superfluous?

Quote:
If I come to a fork in the road and I'm not sure which to take I think to myself 'I don't know which road to take'. I don't make up a word to stand for my indecision.


Really! But that is because you have the word “indecision” to use. When I am in a discussion with atheists and theists about these issues, I have the word “agnostic” to use. It is not superfluous…it is a valid word and describes something valid (and apparently disturbing to some people.)

Quote:
For that reason to define oneself as an 'agnostic' is not required... just the statement 'I don't know' is all that's required when asked if there are any deities. If we had to make words up for every time time we thought 'I don't know' ... well life's to short isn't it?


Oh, now I see the problem. You thought I made the word up. No, I did not make the word up. Thomas Huxley did. He wanted to differentiate himself from the atheists of his day—the people who were asserting there were no gods.

The English language has more words than any other language…with the idea in mind of giving names to things so one can refer to them by names rather than having to describe them.

“Atheist” is an example. One could suggest that it is superfluous, that one can simply say “I do not believe in gods and want to be lumped together with other people who do not believe in gods even if some actually go so far as to suggest there is no possibility of gods. But I think we can agree that using “atheist” is easier. Life is too short to go through all that other stuff.

Using “agnostic” also is easier.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2012 12:27 pm
@igm,
Quote:
The words 'theist' and 'atheist' stand for something the word 'agnostic' does not. Philosophy can ponder the first two the third is a non sequitur.


That, igm, is the first thing you have said that I must characterize as absurd. I could use gratuitous or self-serving, but "absurd" is more accurate.
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2012 01:37 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Well I agree that there doesn’t seem to be any proof that a creator god exists, but I defy you to show that “nor can there be” is logical.

You must know many logical arguments against there being a creator god, don't you? As you know there is a difference between proof and logic.
Frank Apisa wrote:
...And what would you say if I suggested the word “atheist” is superfluous?

I'd say it is antonym of theist. Huxley made up the word agnostic... but as you said above 'there doesn't seem to be any proof that a creator god exists,' so for those like yourself the word atheist is fine.
Frank Apisa wrote:
Using “agnostic” also is easier.

You say you are an agnostic because you can't rule out a 'prime mover'. You believe in a beginning to reality but you don't know how it all began. You don't have any evidence but because its possible you can't rule it out i.e. that a God started the whole thing off. But there is a current explaination that follows from moments after this event up to the present day not requiring a God. But you Frank can't rule out that there was a God that started it all off... so you take Huxley's word to justify this stance... why... oh why?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2012 02:13 pm
@igm,
Quote:
You must know many logical arguments against there being a creator god, don't you? As you know there is a difference between proof and logic.


No I do not know many logical arguments against there being a creator god. If you have some to offer—do so. I am not asking for proofs…I am asking for logical arguments for why there is not a creator god. Let’s hear three, since you say there are so many.

Quote:
I'd say it is antonym of theist. Huxley made up the word agnostic... but as you said above 'there doesn't seem to be any proof that a creator god exists,' so for those like yourself the word atheist is fine.


Words are coined all the time, igm, that is what makes English such a rich language.

You run into trouble if you suggest, as you do here, that atheist is an antonym of theist. “Theist” is “Belief in the existence of a god or gods.” Is the antonym of that “belief that god or gods do not exist” or “lack of belief that god or gods do not exist.”

And who decides which it is?

Quote:
You say you are an agnostic because you can't rule out a 'prime mover'.


I did??? Where do you get this stuff from? I never said anything like that. Quote what I said…and then deal with that. Don’t make stuff up and then argue against what you make up.

Quote:
You believe in a beginning to reality but you don't know how it all began.


This is getting out of hand. I never said I “believe” in anything. Quote what I say…and deal with what I actually say rather than paraphrasing, because you are not careful in your paraphrasing.



Quote:
You don't have any evidence but because its possible you can't rule it out i.e. that a God started the whole thing off. But there is a current explaination that follows from moments after this event up to the present day not requiring a God. But you Frank can't rule out that there was a God that started it all off... so you take Huxley's word to justify this stance... why... oh why?


This paragraph doesn’t make enough sense to deserve a response.

I really want to discuss this, igm…and I want to be respectful. You seem like a decent, intelligent person and I am enjoying the give and take. But we both have a position to defend…and I prefer to defend my position rather than your mischaracterization of my position.
mesquite
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2012 02:27 pm
Welcome back Frank. I always enjoyed your threads about the darker side of the Bible, but your forays into the promotion of agnosticism have never done a thing for me.

The world is divided between believers in some form of a deity and non believers. To take a subset of the non believers and give them a label and call it a superior position merely creates a division that need not be. Non believers are vastly outnumbered as it is. It is a distinction without a difference. As Krumple pointed out here, everyone is agnostic whether they admit to it or not.
igm
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2012 02:29 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Fair enough, but I wasn't quoting you I was trying to understand why you'd believe that there might be a god... the obvious one is 'how did it all begin' and that is the point that some argue a god might have got involved. So I was checking if that was your reason. How else could one hold the belief that there may be a god with any credibility?

You are welcome to defend yourself... I wish you well... but you'll find that I said that it is irrelevant whether there is a god or not unless it impacts negatively on myself or others.

There is no creator God or gods because the true nature of reality is beyond elaboration since the true nature cannot be proved to be existent, non existent, both or neither existent, non existent or both. If you can prove that reality is one of those four extremes... let me know.
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2012 02:29 pm
@mesquite,
Just as Set has always said"Everyone is conservative, only about different things (and all to different amounts".
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2012 02:32 pm
Agnostic or a-gnostic. The Shorter Oxford under "A" uses both agnostic and asexual as examples of "a" as a prefix meaning "un" or "non" before words derived from Latin. Similarly with atheist.

Not a theist. Not a gnostic.

However, there are differences of opinions about what gnostic means which, to cut a long story short, polarise into two extremes as one might expect with poles. At one pole there is libertinage and at the other askesis.

On that basis agnostic rejects both extremes and steers a middle way possibly interrupted by short lurches into extreme territory which can cause crises of conscience or the sort of physical degeneration associated with fasting, self flagellation and no boozing.

It goes without saying, although Confucius reportedly felt the need to say it, that he who sits in middle of road gets run over by traffic going in both directions.

With the Roman Church being both a spiritual guide and a secular authority at the same time, meditative and pragmatic, it might be said that its average position is agnostic.

As the secular power of the Church declined it would obviously begin to drift back to gnosticism and, with the leakiness of all large organisations becoming ever more important, the drift would necessarily be towards the askesis pole although geezers from NJ, having no need to worry about investigative journalism, might easily head in the other direction as Frank once told us he had done.

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2012 03:00 pm
@mesquite,
Nice to see ya, Mesquite. Thanks for the welcome back.

Quote:
…but your forays into the promotion of agnosticism have never done a thing for me.


Sorry about that, but I consider this to be important. I think religion (particularly the more intrusive aspects of it) has to be “fought” and I think attacking it from the position of agnosticism makes for a better battle than from the position of atheism. So I will continue my promotion despite the fact that so many people feel as you do. I recognize that I am in a minority.

Quote:
The world is divided between believers in some form of a deity and non believers.


I do not subscribe to that at all. If it were just that…and if you truly meant “non-believers”…I would end this campaign within the hour. But it isn’t so…and your idea of “believers” and non-believers” may not be what you assume it to be.

Take Edgar, for instance. He insists there are no gods…and that there is no possibility of gods. I suspect you would place him in the category of “non-believers.” I think that would be incorrect. Edgar (I love the guy, he is a decent person) is a “believer.” He simply “believes” in one possible Reality which happens to be different from the Reality theists “believe” in. Theists “believe in” a Reality with gods (or a GOD), while atheists like Edgar “believe in” a Reality where there are no gods.

I do not do “believing.” I acknowledge that I do not know if there are gods or are no gods…and I do not see enough unambiguous evidence to make a guess either way on the question.

Quote:
To take a subset of the non believers and give them a label and call it a superior position merely creates a division that need not be. Non believers are vastly outnumbered as it is. It is a distinction without a difference. As Krumple pointed out here, everyone is agnostic whether they admit to it or not.


I have no problem uniting…but I dare to suppose the fight will be better prosecuted if we unite under the agnostic banner, so to speak. I have no problem using “non-believer” rather than agnostic, so long as we all recognize that many, perhaps most, atheists actually are “believers” rather than non-believers.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2012 03:12 pm
@igm,
Igm, thanks for you reply.

Quote:
Fair enough, but I wasn't quoting you I was trying to understand why you'd believe that there might be a god...


There is that “believe” word again. How I despise that word! It ruins almost every chance to have a reasonable discussion, because it means so many different things to so many different people.

I do not “believe” there might be a god, igm, I simply acknowledge that Reality MAY be completely without gods…and MAY contain gods. It is one of the two possibilities…and I can think of NO reason to exclude either of the possibilities.

Quote:
How else could one hold the belief that there may be a god with any credibility?


I have no idea…but I do not “hold the belief that there may be a god”…I simply acknowledge that there may be a god or gods. If you have some information that indicates there cannot be a god or gods…please share it, or stop making it seem that I am being illogical by acknowledging that self-evident truth. It is axiomatic: There are two possibilities, either there are gods involved in the Reality or there are no gods involved. How on Earth can anyone dismiss one out of hand?

Quote:
You are welcome to defend yourself... I wish you well... but you'll find that I said that it is irrelevant whether there is a god or not unless it impacts negatively on myself or others.


Well, it may be irrelevant for you…and not for others. In any case, this discussion is not about whether it is or is not relevant. It is about what IS…or IS NOT.

Quote:
There is no creator God or gods because the true nature of reality is beyond elaboration since the true nature cannot be proved to be existent, non existent, both or neither existent, non existent or both. If you can prove that reality is one of those four extremes... let me know.


This makes absolutely no sense…and if you tried to put it into a syllogism, it would contort your mind. And if you are offering it as an example of a logical argument for why there is not a creator god…it misses by a mile.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2012 03:15 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Agnostic or a-gnostic. The Shorter Oxford under "A" uses both agnostic and asexual as examples of "a" as a prefix meaning "un" or "non" before words derived from Latin. Similarly with atheist.

Not a theist. Not a gnostic.


Spendius, the word “atheist” came into the English language BEFORE the word theist. It came to us from the Greek through the French…and essentially means “a” without + “theos” gods…without gods. You cannot be without gods unless you are asserting there are not gods…because if there are gods, you are with gods whether you want to be or not.
Thomas
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2012 03:26 pm
@farmerman,
Are you sure? You think Frank's not just kidding about being an agnostic? How could I misjudge him so badly!
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2012 03:28 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
But if I were asked by someone in the room, “What is making that sound?”…I would answer, “I do not know.”

It does. Thanks!
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2012 03:45 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank... my argument is about a creator god... not a species of god like sentient beings that cannot create a universe from scratch. Their existence or not is a side issue and are irrelivent compared to the idea that a god can create everything from either itself, something other than itself, both or in some other way.

Frank Apisa wrote:

This makes absolutely no sense…and if you tried to put it into a syllogism, it would contort your mind. And if you are offering it as an example of a logical argument for why there is not a creator god…it misses by a mile.


It does make sense... but not to you... yet.

The true nature of reality is existent.. yes or no? i.e. does it have the characteristics of existence?

If not is it nonexistent?

If not is it both?

If not is it some other alternative?

If reality doesn't have one of these prerequisite characteristics then it cannot be said to have started nor can it have been created by a god. If you can prove that reality's nature has one of these defining characteristics you can go on to be an agnostic... but the nature of reality is beyond words because it has no characteristics attributable to its nature. It appears... so it is not nonexistent but when we search for the characteristics of existence we cannot find them due to impermanence i.e. everything is in flux and has no duration whatsoever.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2012 04:23 pm
@igm,
Quote:
Frank... my argument is about a creator god... not a species of god like sentient beings that cannot create a universe from scratch. Their existence or not is a side issue and are irrelivent compared to the idea that a god can create everything from either itself, something other than itself, both or in some other way.


igm…you are writing too quickly…and not making sense. I cannot understand what you are saying here…or how it applies to anything I said. If you want me to reply, you have to reconstruct this sentence into a coherent statement….and explain to me how it applies to what I wrote.

Quote:
It does make sense... but not to you... yet.


It doesn’t make sense…and neither does this “explanation.”

Quote:
The true nature of reality is existent.. yes or no? i.e. does it have the characteristics of existence?


The true nature of existence…is what exists. What IS…IS…whether we understand it or not. What exists…exists.

I do not understand what you mean by the balance of your post.

Quote:
If reality doesn't have one of these prerequisite characteristics then it cannot be said to have started nor can it have been created by a god.


Because why??? Reality is what exists. How it came to exist is an unknown. Did it have a start? Beats the **** out of me. Do you know? Has it always existed? Beats the **** out of me. Do you know? Is it infinite? Is it eternal? What is it? I do not know the answers to any of those questions. Do you?

How can you say with any degree of certainty what can or cannot be?

Quote:
If you can prove that reality's nature has one of these defining characteristics you can go on to be an agnostic... but the nature of reality is beyond words because it has no characteristics attributable to its nature. It appears... so it is not nonexistent but when we search for the characteristics of existence we cannot find them due to impermanence i.e. everything is in flux and has no duration whatsoever.


This is a paragraph of words…but not of ideas. You are not saying anything here…just using words to do something—cloud things comes immediately to my mind.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 01/22/2025 at 12:45:25