Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Frank Apisa,

igm wrote:

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

Frank Apisa wrote:

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

I said 'reality' Frank not existence. This is too deep for you to comprehend or you are just not trying to understand. I'll leave it there... Smile

1 Reply

@igm,

If there is anyone listening in to this conversation...who can help me understand what igm is trying to say...I would appreciate some help here.

I really want to understand his points.

igm...I am an old guy, but I do have a degree with a major in Economics and Philosophy...and some grad school. I am not stupid...nor am I being purposefully obtuse. I want to understand what you are trying to say, but your writing is a jumble and you simply are not clear in expressing ideas.

Let's see if I can get some help from someone else who might be able to clear up your argument for me.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I could easily be wrong on this, Frank, but it seems to me that igm is making the old Platonic distinction between the "real" and the "actual" here, just using a different vocabulary. So when you talk about what "is", you are speaking of that of which you are sensuously aware through your five senses. This, to Plato, would be the "actual." The "real" is something else. Reality is of the essence of "idea", not accessible to our senses.

Anyhow, that's how I'm understanding it but, then, I only minored in Philosophy at Boston University more than 50 years ago and my Master's degree is in a different field.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Thanks, Lustig.

I have been trying to get to the "actual."

Regardless of what we perceive or think we know...there is an actuality that exists. What IS...IS...whether we know it or not, or whether we CAN know it or not.

The actuality of what exists is what exist. That is the Reality.

I've re-read that penultimate post of his...and cannot make heads or tails of it. Perhaps he will comment on what you just said...and refine that explanation (or understanding) of what he was attempting to say into something I can wrap my mind around.

Thanks for the attempt.

Anyone else?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

If there is anyone listening in to this conversation...who can help me understand what igm is trying to say...I would appreciate some help here.

Search me Frank. It might be that igm has been reading some pop-philosophy books, got carried away with how personally flattered he feels to be appreciating the incisive points made therein and feels the need to share.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

The reason I do not answer that way to the unicorn question or to the purple accountant working on a moon of Saturn or Flying Spaghetti monsters, is because those questions are only proposed by atheists in discussions with agnostics…and are questions that do deserve a response. They could be answered with “I do not know” “Yes” “No” “maybe” and it would have no impact on whether or not the question “Are there gods involved in the Reality of existence?”

What if I purposed the question this way. Is an unicorn or the purple accountant working on a moon of Saturn or Flying Spaghetti monsters, "Gods that are involved in the Reality of existence?

Just because an atheist brings these ideas to the discussion should have no bearing on whether they are true or not from what I see.

2 Replies

The Irony Police have picked up spendi for that bit of "Fatuous Claimery"

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Flying spaghetti Monsters have the same basis of folk mythology and historical accounts of "when was this point of Creed added".
Religion is as forensically documented as anything, and its interesting that we arent afraid of a spaghetti monster but but really cant be sure about a human pantheon of Gods.
One god
3Gods in One
Flying gods for every day of the week
House gods
Mt top gods who merely wanna **** with you
depressing mean-assed gods of the colder climes
"Everything that aint tied down" is a god
Damn them trees look like gods to me.
Yep, we oughta remain agnostic about all these lest we piss one of em off.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

That is pretty much the way I see it too. 2 Cents

0 Replies

I don't know is such an empty answer.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

[quote[What if I purposed the question this way. Is an unicorn or the purple accountant working on a moon of Saturn or Flying Spaghetti monsters, "Gods that are involved in the Reality of existence? [/quote]

I would hazard a guess that they are not gods…but rather just the usual fare that enters discussions between atheists and agnostics. I have NEVER seen Purple Accountants working on a moon of Saturn or Flying Spaghetti monsters proposed in any discussion other than one between an atheist and an agnostic…and feel comfortable with that “guess.” As for the unicorn, I have never seen a unicorn proposed except as a mythical creature…although I still would not feel comfortable guessing there are no unicorns. It is a big universe…no telling what is out there.

I might add…just because I do not see enough evidence to specifically include or exclude a particular from the possible content of the Reality of existence—or to even make a meaningful guess in either direction…does not mean I never see enough evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess.

You do realize that, do you not?

As to the question of whether they are gods…or if a discussion of them goes to the question of possible manifestations of the Reality of existence—I would say, NO.

Quote:

Just because an atheist brings these ideas to the discussion should have no bearing on whether they are true or not from what I see.

I agree. Not sure how it matters, but I anticipate you will tell me.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

As to the question of whether they are gods…or if a discussion of them goes to the question of possible manifestations of the Reality of existence—I would say, NO.

Why would you say NO?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Why not just say I do not know being you have no evidence that supports them not existing or not being Gods. In a infinite universe anything is possible correct?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

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.

I think that most theists take the word agnostic to mean that the agnosticism applies to an unknowing about their own particular diety and that is not a position that I wish to associate myself with.

Frank Apisa wrote:

mesquite wrote:
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.

I meant non-believers in any form of a deity. There are those that believe in some form of deity and there are those that do not believe in a deity.

Frank Apisa wrote:

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.

Yes, Edgar is a non-believer in the one particular deity of most consequence to us, the Abrahamic deity, the same as I and I BELIEVE Twisted Evil

also you. That he extends that non-belief to the existence of any other possible deities is superfluous to discussions about any particular deity.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not do “believing.”

Sure you do. You believe that an agnostic label is superior to an atheist label.

Frank Apisa wrote:

mesquite wrote:
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.

Atheists are non-believers in deities, this one, that one, or any other one.

1 Reply

They always malign the atheist by calling him a believer. Because there are no factual arguments against the lack of belief, they have to invent some handle so they have something derogatory to grab onto.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Why would you say NO?

For all the reasons I gave earlier in my previous response...and to get the atheist off my back. There are issues in which I do not have enough evidence upon which to base what I consider a meaningful guess...and other times when I think I do have enough evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess. In this case, I think I have enough evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess.

In any case, this all reduces to: I do not know the true nature of Reality...I cannot exclude an idea like "there may be gods involved"...I see no evidence that would allow me a reasonable guess that there are no gods...or there are gods...so I am agnostic on the issue.

I suspect none of you know the true nature of Reality either...and all of you should be agnostic on the issue also.

I have no problem with people tending toward guessing there are gods...or with people tending toward guessing there are no gods...

...but people who assert there are gods and who claim there has to be a GOD...or people who assert there are no gods and who claim it is impossible for there to be gods...

...are simply believers--which is to say they are people making blind guesses about the unknown.

Not sure why some "believers" moan when their beliefs are called to their attention, but that's the way humans act at times.

1 Reply

@mesquite,

Quote:

Sure you do. You believe that an agnostic label is superior to an atheist label.

If you want to consider that to be a "belief", Mesquite, you certainly are free to do so. I do not consider it a "belief"...I consider it to be an assertion--a consideration of the alternatives...and would never label it a "belief."

I do not do "believing."

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

consider it to be an assertion

. I do enjoy these diversions..

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I am willing to acknowledge that my "assertion" could be wrong. I also enjoy these diversions...which really are discussions to test whether it is or not.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you want to consider that to be a "belief", Mesquite, you certainly are free to do so. I do not consider it a "belief" . . .

Now this is hilarious. In order to assert your intellectual and moral superiority, you insist that atheism is a belief. But you object to agnosticism being labeled as a belief. That's understandable, though, given that your pathetic thesis about the superiority of your views collapses unless you claim that atheism is a belief.

2 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know