Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

If I were an agnostic, I would tread lightly this day. After all, we can't prove that any ill occurrences are not the result of a Friday the Thirteenth spate of bad luck. Avoid black cats, knock on wood. Hide, if possible. Mwahahahaha

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, would you agree or disagree with this and why?

If someone says ‘A’ exists then
If I can’t disprove ‘A’ exists then
I will hold the view that ‘A’ may or may not exist.

'A' of course stands for anything.

1 Reply

@spendius,

The existence of restaurants is due to the fact that they allow one of the biological necessities to be satisfied in a socially acceptable manner providing music is played to drown out chomping sounds and diners are prepared to avoid looking at the fissogs of their companions during the mechanical processes involved in stuffing in gobbets of nutrient, masticating and swallowing them.

I watched a large gentleman in the pub at the last dart's match eat six glistening sausage rolls as he watched the play of the competitors. I am not blessed with a particularly delicate sensibility but I really did feel that special facilities ought to be provided out back where such sights can be hidden from public view.

It is a serious breach of protocol to look at Her Majesty at banquets during moments of unfortunately and unavoidedly similar mechanisms.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Keeping an open mind about superstitions--for which the only justification is "ya gotta have faith" is not only not laudable, it's deplorable. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Obviously. That is tautological in two different ways.

What about superstitions which have a basis? The marriage ceremony for example.

The difficulty arises when superstitions are thought of from the individual point of view rather than from the point of view of the social aggregate.

It would be superstitious from a scientific point of view to think that winning the lottery brings good luck. I bet it lays a good number out.

The idea that military strategy can be determined by reading the entrails of ceremonially sacrificed birds is a potentially useful superstition because it places the determination of the strategy into the hands of the priests conducting the reading rather than into the hands of the generals who are spoiling for aggressive booty hunting. That is why the ceremonial reading of the entrails must be conducted in as suitably convincing a manner as to satisfy the onlookers of the validity of the conclusion which, of course, has nothing to do with the entrails and everything to do with priestly knowledge of the difficulties of the proposed adventure under the political circumstances at the time.

0 Replies

To agnostics, keeping an open mind means to strangle common sense.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

It is only yesterday ed that you said you were offering no more contributions to this thread.

Perhaps if you tie a knot in your handerchief when you make such resolutions it will help you keep them.

2 Replies

@spendius,

I would be really interested in all your views on the "reading of the entrails" hypothesis.

If you have no view on a matter so pertinent to this thread's subject then some of us, I'm not sure how many, cannot help seeing your posts in the same way we see a cock crowing on a gate at dawn.

It's a real giveaway that some of you seem to be still working on insights you had whilst still in short pants as if life had nothing to teach you.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Quote:
You missed the part where I said, “I simply dismiss those things out of hand. “

I did not say there are no purple unicorns polka dotted CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn; Flying Spaghetti monsters. I said I simply dismiss those things…meaning I dismiss those kinds of intrusions into a serious discussion of “What is Reality?” My guess, based on what I know about the questions of purple unicorns polka dotted CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn; Flying Spaghetti monsters…is that they do not exist. My guess is they are simply the fabrication of atheist trying to intrude nonsense into a serious discussion.

Fair enough, that is what I do as well. I also do the same when theist use the word God.

Quote:
Here is my agnosticism:

I do not know if there is a GOD…or if there are gods in the Reality of existence. I do not know if gods exist.

DO YOU?

I do not know there is no possibility of gods…and do not know that there are no gods in existence.

DO YOU?

I see nothing to convince me that a GOD has to exist to explain Reality and existence.

DO YOU?

I see nothing to convince me that gods cannot possibly exist.

DO YOU?

Based on that, I see no way to make a reasonable, meaningful guess in either direction.

DO YOU?

You may…and if so, good for you. But I DO NOT.

If I replace your word God with the words purple unicorns polka dotted CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn; Flying Spaghetti monsters, your logic seems to remain the same.

What do you think?

I think you are guessing

Here is my agnosticism:

I do not know if there are purple unicorns polka dotted CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn; Flying Spaghetti monsters…or if there are gods in the Reality of existence. I do not know if gods or purple unicorns polka dotted CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn; Flying Spaghetti monsters exist.

DO YOU?

I do not know there is no possibility of gods purple unicorns polka dotted CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn; Flying Spaghetti monsters…and do not know that there are no gods or purple unicorns polka dotted CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn; Flying Spaghetti monsters in existence.

DO YOU?

I see nothing to convince me that a GOD or purple unicorns polka dotted CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn; Flying Spaghetti monsters has to exist to explain Reality and existence.

DO YOU?

I see nothing to convince me that gods nor purple unicorns polka dotted CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn; Flying Spaghetti monsters cannot possibly exist.

DO YOU?

Based on that, I see no way to make a reasonable, meaningful guess in either direction.

DO YOU?

If there is know evidence then all we can do is guess.

I am delighted you agree that you do not know if a god exists or not....and that you do not see a need for gods to exist; or that gods are impossible. I also am delighted you agree that there is not enough evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess on the question. But I understand that you would find the question interesting enough to at least discuss.

I am amused that you have that same problem with the question of whether or not there are purple unicorns polka dotted CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn or Flying Spaghetti monsters--and that you insist on discussing something like that.

But you sound intelligent enough to deal with that problem.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Quote:
How do you know that? How would a god intervene?
Weve looked at the reported interventions in the various "sacred Literatures" and found it incorrect or weve found strong evidence of natural causes. Also, therise of life on this planet was a natural reflection of the changing environment through time. We know that pretty damn well. What we dont know is what we can spend our time to find now, we look for mechanisms .

Quote:
Could a more advanced civilization not travel to our planet, intervene in some way and prevent puny, primitive people(from realizing it?)
Sure, but why would that be a subcategory fo the Divine?. If life were seeded at some point It certainly makes a neat story but hardly worth a literature and a priesthood. ((Id entertain several reasearch grants IF we had found such evidence. The Creationists are fond of taking the "Cambriian WExplosion" out of the garage and parading it as an example of such an" evolutionary kick start", yet science finds more and more the pattern of the development opf life in the 45 to 60 million years after the Cryogene " the great Planetary Ice Age" that included the documented and well evidencedseveral edaphic features responsible for development of life with "seafood shells" Again, its traceable and hardly worth anything but a scince fiction story to the contrary

Quote:
There is no reliable evidence in either direction. A god…or an advanced civilization could be influencing us…and we could be completely oblivious to it.
Thats a belief system on your part. It is based upon an assertion that reminds me of the basis of ID"theory" which states merely that "LIFE ON THOIS PLANET IS TOO COMPLEX TO HAVE ARISEN NATURALLY"> Thats their entire argument, nothing to argue with, buy it or reject it. Ive asked all the IDers who used to frequent here for any suites of evidence and Id always get back some form of their basic assertion. Thats what I find tiresome
I reject "we dont know enough" along with the IDers argument because it isnt based upon any degree of scientific sophistication. because I have seen strong evidence to the contrary and choose to waste my time doing that..
The evidence just keeps piling up and we fill in important gaps almost weekly and, although we dont see a lot of gods hanging around, we do, on the contrary, see a beautiful pattern of the relationship of planetary life to the "Bauplan" of the planet that its much more fascinating to exercise my brain on such problems than it is to insert periodic stops that require divine intervention.
Remember , as set is constantly reminding us , ATHEISM merely means a'theos, or "without a god", and thats pretty much what modern biology is ubderpinned by.
If some evidence does show up that suggests some kind of intervention by aliens, panspermic microbes, gods, or pasta, Ill worry about it then and have fun speculating like everyone else in the sciences. However, to me, that would ultimately be a complete downer especially knowing that some key features of life would have to remain a mystrey or as the cartoon states "And Then A miracle Happens".
Practical science, boring history, stamp collecting archeology, and genetics all keep chucking caltrops onto the theists roads, but what the planet reveals to us via these disciplines is ,to me,much more a fascinating destination than is the creed that the priests demand (or even stipulating to a "possibility" of divine intervention.
You seem to accept an Infinitely small chance , but a chance nevertheless. Thats ok, but when we establish (what the stisticians call) the 6 log evidence, Ive entirely rejected the concept of an outside chance.

My belief system includes a long shot that says that some day we will understand it all. Maybe then we or our masters the robots, will become the gods.

Thanks for that reply, Farmerman. You know...I think I have enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a guess that you and I will never agree on this issue.

Amazing that we can have enough to make guesses on some things and not make guesses on others.
.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Re: Setanta (Post 4859820)
ya know youre gonna get yelled at. Turn your speakers down

C'mon, Farmerman...don't yell at him. Let's keep this reasonable and courteous.

0 Replies

I notice that one of the contributors here wrote: “Who gives a rat's ass. Keeping an open mind about things which are amenable to investigation, such as the ramifications of environmental pollution, or the nature of finds which may fill in gaps in the fossil record is sensible, and laudable. Keeping an open mind about superstitions--for which the only justification is "ya gotta have faith" is not only not laudable, it's deplorable. Stupid, stupid, stupid.”

It occurs to me that it is even more stupid to label something as superstition in order to claim that you are shutting your mind to even the possibility of it, because "Keeping an open mind about superstitions--for which the only justification is "ya gotta have faith" is not only not laudable, it's deplorable. Stupid, stupid, stupid."

I wouldn’t call this rationalization “non laudable” or “stupid, stupid, stupid” though, because although one doesn’t really have to justify or rationalize having a closed mind—doing so as illogically as this was done at least provides a bit of humor.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Frank, would you agree or disagree with this and why?

If someone says ‘A’ exists then
If I can’t disprove ‘A’ exists then
I will hold the view that ‘A’ may or may not exist.

'A' of course stands for anything.

Igm…I do not know if there are gods…I do not know if there are no gods…I do not see enough evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess about the question.

Sorry if that bothers you, but it is so whether it bothers you or not.

I do not know if there are gods.

I do not know that there are no gods.

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess.

It is my opinion that the best way to describe this situation is to identify myself as an Agnostic…which I do.

I understand my position may differ in some respects from the way Huxley felt about agnosticism when he coined the word, but I still feel comfortable using the word to describe my stand on this issue.

I've tried to express my position clearly, reasonably, and courteously, but really...enough with the tests of whether or not I can feel there is enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base guesses about other things. Enough with purple unicorns and CPA's working on moons of Saturn.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

To agnostics, keeping an open mind means to strangle common sense.

To this Agnostics, “keeping an open mind” means “keeping an open mind.”

It takes a closed mind to suppose that the agnostic position is strangling common sense.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Amazing that we can have enough to make guesses on some things and not make guesses on others

I doont consider hard scientific evidence as a "guess". I think that the more you know about a subject (evolutionary sciences), the more you can appreciate how mindlessly opportunistic and flubbed up our place on this planet has been "designed". If theres a divine intelligence behind it,I could sell im whole life insuranceand hed never be the wiser.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Frank, would you agree or disagree with this and why?

If someone says ‘A’ exists then
If I can’t disprove ‘A’ exists then
I will hold the view that ‘A’ may or may not exist.

Igm…I do not know if there are gods…I do not know if there are no gods…I do not see enough evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess about the question.

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess.

Why are gods a special case when you use your test of: "I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess."?

If 'A' above was changed to read 'god' would you agree or disagree with my question i.e. the three lines above referring to 'A'?

I'm sure you're not trying to being evasive... we now know your definition of agnostic... we don't need you to repeat it ad infinitum. It's the equivalent of saying: what I said is true for me and it's true for me because of what I said.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Why are gods a special case when you use your test of: "I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess."?

If 'A' above was changed to read 'god' would you agree or disagree with my question i.e. the three lines above referring to 'A'?

I'm sure you're not trying to being evasive... we now know your definition of agnostic... we don't need you to repeat it ad infinitum. It's the equivalent of saying: what I said is true for me and it's true for me because of what I said.

Okay, since you insist:

Your first line was: “If someone says ‘A’ exists then…”

If the question being discussed is, “What is the true nature of the Reality of existence…are there gods involved or are there no gods involved?”…and someone says, “There are gods involved”…

…I would say, “What is your evidence there are gods?”

If someone says, “There are no gods involved”…I would say, “What is your evidence there are no gods?”

I would assess the evidence each offered (I already have done that over the years) and respond, “Well, I do not see it either way…and frankly, the evidence you offer for your assertions seem inadequate to make a meaningful guess in either direction." (Which is what I have done, consistently.)

Your second line was: “If I can’t disprove ‘A’ exists then…”

I would NEVER ask for "proof" that gods exist or that gods do not exist. I am convinced such proof does not exist and such a request would be unfair and fruitless. I would assume the "assertion" was actually a "guess"...and only ask for the evidence upon which the guess that “gods exist” or “gods do not exist” is based…and then comment on that evidence.

Your third line was: “I will hold the view that ‘A’ may or may not exist.”

Yes, if the evidence for a guess that gods exist is not sufficient for me to guess in that direction…and the evidence for a guess that gods do not exist is not sufficient for me to guess in that direction…I will hold that I cannot make a guess.

So before we get on to other questions from you…allow me these few:

What evidence do you see that gods exist?

What evidence do you see that gods do not exist?

That way we can both evaluate the evidence and see if a reasonable guess can be made based on the evidence available. Of course, it would be reasonable to discuss and evaluate the evidence…and see if it justifies making a guess in either direction…before going on to any follow up questions you may have for me.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

I doont consider hard scientific evidence as a "guess".

Okay, so what is the "hard scientific evidence" that gods do not exist.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

how mindlessly opportunistic and flubbed up our place on this planet has been "designed".

That's the same type of tautological nonsense as Setanta served up on the subject of superstitions being stupid. Only the words are changed. The irrational muddle is the same.

It is glaringly obvious that there are closed minds here in all directions concerning the exploration of the efficiency of using the reading of animal entrails in determining policy.

Open minded viewers here are advised to explore the matter themselves as they will discover nothing from this bunch of crowing cocks about such an interesting facet of the thread's topic.

I'll allow that these old cocks are scared of exploring the matter because they fear doing so wipes them out but that is the very definition of closed mindedness.

The threadmaster has recently shown one or two signs of tentative and rather fragile open-mindedness. Forget the rest on that score and if you need any evidence to justify it simply take note of points raised which the blather attempts to shut out.

I'll wager they ache to have the power to shut such things out entirely. I'll wager that the NCSE has security which only force could breach.

Bloody liberals are all the same.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

“What is the true nature of the Reality of existence…are there gods involved or are there no gods involved?”

Whilst I work through you reply to my post, can you explain what the term in bold above means to you? In philosophy as you know the term 'Reality' is used when the addition 'of existence' is used it would normally be seen as redundant. When the whole phrase is used it is normally about theism and has theist connotations (put it in Google and you'll see what I mean). So if you could make clear your understanding of the term it would help. Don't be concerned I'm working towards some questions which will be more direct. But we need to understand the terms we are using in this discussion. That's if you want to discuss what you are defending.

2 Replies

@igm,

Frank can't properly discuss what he is defending. I have a lot of experience of trying to prise open the minds of men Frank's age and it is a complete waste of time.

He certainly won't bother about the prospect of you working towards more direct questions. He has already demonstrated his methods with any of those that don't suit his purpose.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know