Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@spendius,

You may be right... but now I'm at least trying; before it was more about different ways of ... what is the saying 'skinning a cat' sometimes all kinds of approaches get all kinds of answers... logic and reasoning have their place but so does... just anything that comes to mind... at least it may get a different and sometimes useful response. It often leads to contradictions in those who are unclear about what and why they believe what they do. Time will tell... if Frank continues to reply. As Frank can read this it's not talking behind his back... so to speak.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank wrote:

FM wrote:
I doont consider hard scientific evidence as a "guess".

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

That there's none that they do.

I am so glad to see you back on these boards Frank. Truly.

2 Replies

Frank,

I see how you're trying to be objective in your approach to agnosticism, but where you are being subjective is the point where you include God in your agnosticism while excluding things like fairies and unicorns ultimately corrupting your attempt at objectivity. What makes it egregious is that you then demand that others follow along in your subjectivism. For other people, the idea of God is as implausible to be agnostic about as fairies and unicorns are to you. It seems to me the reason you include God in your agnosticism is because God was once a part of what you considered to be something you knew existed, as a part of your upbringing, but now doubt; and also because a majority of people believe that they know God exists, which would be an ad populum fallacy in your attempt at objectivity. Some people who have had truly irreligious (read: without god) upbringings wouldn't consider subjectively singling out God from the other supernatural things and entities from their considerations of what they are agnostic about.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

With an avvie like that hinge may I respectfully request that you don't say anything friendly or welcoming to me.

0 Replies

@hingehead,

Glad to see you too, Hingehead.

In response to my question, “…what is the "hard scientific evidence" that gods do not exist?”…you offered:

That there's none that they do.

That is what you consider “hard scientific evidence?”

Hardly!

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is any life (sentient or not) on any planet circling the nearest three stars to our Sol…but that certainly is not “hard scientific evidence” that life does not exist there.

I ask again: What is the “hard scientific evidence” of which Farmerman spoke?

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

Whilst I work through you reply to my post...

I can wait. I am very patient. Essentially my question to you is the same as I ask of Farmerman...and I prefer to wait for an answer to my question and a discussion of your response before going to another of your questions.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Infrablue...good to see you.

Thank you for your opinions on this, but I suggest that the reason I treat the question of gods differently from the "unicorn, flying spaghetti monster, purple CPA's working on the moons of Saturn, etc)"is that we are ultimately dealing with the answer to the question, "Is there a god or gods involved in the nature of Reality?"

The "unicorn, flying spaghetti monster, purple CPA's, etc" is never truly advanced as a possible explanation for how the Reality came to be (if it did 'come to be')...but is merely a smoke screen offered by atheists to agnostics. I have never seen it ever discussed anywhere else.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Ill have you know that the Pastafarians are a real religion

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

igm wrote:

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.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Whilst I work through you reply to my post...

I can wait. I am very patient. Essentially my question to you is the same as I ask of Farmerman...and I prefer to wait for an answer to my question and a discussion of your response before going to another of your questions.

Sorry Frank... I need your definition to answer you previous extensive reply to me in which you used the term I'm referring to. Shouldn't be to difficult and it is a reasonable request. You have said how you want to discuss this in relation to the, "true nature of the reality of existence" as you put it. You use the term, I don't understand how you use the term, seems only polite to let me know what it is. You use agnostic in a different way to Huxley so it's not unfair of me in light of this to get you to define what you mean by this important term.

I'm patient I can wait.

I'm not sure what fm has to do with my reply to your last post?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I label theism supersition because it is not an attemp to explain the unknown, it is an unnecessary appeal to the unknowable. Theism introduces the supernatural, and, having done so, asserts that as evidence is not there for the supernatural, one must "have faith"--and that is what makes it a superstition. I understand that those whose intellectual tool box is largely empty don't get the distinction.

2 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

Sorry Frank... I need your definition to answer you previous extensive reply to me in which you used the term I'm referring to.

No you don’t.

The answers I am looking for are to the question posed thusly:

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.

When I get the answers to those questions and a chance to discuss those answers, we can move on.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Ill have you know that the Pastafarians are a real religion

I want to acknowledge that I actually laughed out loud at that! It was clever.

0 Replies

OK, i got distracted by a PM from The Girl. Here is Mirriam-Websters definition of superstition:

1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation

b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition

2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

"A false conception of causation" in addition to ignorance, covers theism nicely. Answers-dot-com supplies a more detailed objection to theism as superstition:

1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
2. a. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
b. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.
c. Idolatry.

The definition under 2. a. covers theism, "irrationally maintained . . . by faith in magic or chance." It is not an explanation of the unknown, it creates an unnecessary unknown by an appeal to the unknowable. Keeping an open mind might be laudable (might), but it is certainly not superior to those who object to enteraining the idea.

I don't claim to know. I''m not making guesses (Frank's favorite hobby horse), i'm just rejecting a belief offered without a reasonable basis. It's really pathetic to see someone attempting to defend theism with that tired old whore about disproving gods. No one has to disprove extraordinary claims--if those who propose them cannot substantiate them, they can be ignored, not only with intellectual integrity, but with a good deal of common sense.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

igm wrote:

igm wrote:

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.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Whilst I work through you reply to my post...

I can wait. I am very patient. Essentially my question to you is the same as I ask of Farmerman...and I prefer to wait for an answer to my question and a discussion of your response before going to another of your questions.

Sorry Frank... I need your definition to answer you previous extensive reply to me in which you used the term I'm referring to. Shouldn't be to difficult and it is a reasonable request. You have said how you want to discuss this in relation to the, "true nature of the reality of existence" as you put it. You use the term, I don't understand how you use the term, seems only polite to let me know what it is. You use agnostic in a different way to Huxley so it's not unfair of me in light of this to get you to define what you mean by this important term.

I'm patient I can wait.

I'm not sure what fm has to do with my reply to your last post?

It's at the heart of your reply to me. Seven words in. The most important additional thing you've said. You must define the term. Or leave us all to judge if you are evading the issue. If you don't define you're (in my opinion) trying to avoid a debate which you called me into... way back. I'll leave others to judge your motives for themselves. Give me your definition or avoid it... up to you. I want to debate but I must have that term defined.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

I label theism supersition because it is not an attemp to explain the unknown, it is an unnecessary appeal to the unknowable.

I don’t even understand what that means, Set…but it really doesn’t matter, because you are gratuitously suggesting that "a possible explanation for Reality" is superstition. The fact that you are good at rationalizing, which you are, is not going to change that.

Quote:

Theism introduces the supernatural, and, having done so, asserts that as evidence is not there for the supernatural, one must "have faith"--and that is what makes it a superstition.

That doesn’t make it a superstition, although as you are doing here, I often refer to it as superstition. In any case, I am asserting that there may be gods just as there may be no gods…and that is not superstition…it is axiomatic, actually.

Quote:

I understand that those whose intellectual tool box is largely empty don't get the distinction.

I get that and I agree. That is why I am trying so hard to put things into your toolbox. I am not happy being in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. But you have got your toolbox shut up so tight it is a difficult thing to do.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

It's at the heart of your reply to me. Seven words in. The most important additional thing you've said. You must define the term. Or leave us all to judge if you are evading the issue. If you don't define you're (in my opinion) trying to avoid a debate which you called me into... way back. I'll leave others to judge your motives for themselves. Give me your definition or avoid it... up to you. I want to debate but I must have that term defined.

It is not at the heart of the questions I asked.

I have answered question after question from you...and I now have asked you questions that I want answered.

When you answer them and we discuss your answers...it will be your turn again.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I don’t even understand what that means, Set…

That doesn't surprise me.

Quote:

but it really doesn’t matter, because you are gratuitously suggesting that "a possible explanation for Reality" is superstition. The fact that you are good at rationalizing, which you are, is not going to change that.

No, i am suggesting that that particular explanation for reality is supersition because of it's nature. Try to keep up, Frank.

Quote:

Quote:
Theism introduces the supernatural, and, having done so, asserts that as evidence is not there for the supernatural, one must "have faith"--and that is what makes it a superstition.

That doesn’t make it a superstition . . .

You're absolutely wrong about that--that is precisely what makes it superstition. Read those definitions again . . . "A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance."

Quote:

. . . although as you are doing here, I often refer to it as superstition. In any case, I am asserting that there may be gods just as there may be no gods…and that is not superstition…it is axiomatic, actually.

If you are asserting that there may be gods, you assume the burden of providing a plausible basis for such an assertion. I await your evidence with breath abated. Keep in mind that if your evidence results from a false conception of causation, you are once again dealing in superstition.

Quote:

Quote:
I understand that those whose intellectual tool box is largely empty don't get the distinction.

I get that and I agree. That is why I am trying so hard to put things into your toolbox. I am not happy being in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. But you have got your toolbox shut up so tight it is a difficult thing to do.

Nonsense once again--far from my intellectual tool box being "shut up tight," is is completely accessible to plausible argumentation. Theists (and you) offer none. The claim that you are in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent is laughable, and an example of the snotty, snide, passive-aggressive type of insult in which you so commonly engage, making an ugly joke out of your frequent attempts to claim that you are civil.

You have assumed the burden of an explantion for the existence of a god, of anygods, and provided no explanation. You fail.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

You are losing control again, Set. Why does that happen with you so often? It is not that hard to be civil. Give it a try some day...you will see.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

igm wrote:

It's at the heart of your reply to me. Seven words in. The most important additional thing you've said. You must define the term. Or leave us all to judge if you are evading the issue. If you don't define you're (in my opinion) trying to avoid a debate which you called me into... way back. I'll leave others to judge your motives for themselves. Give me your definition or avoid it... up to you. I want to debate but I must have that term defined.

Frank Apisa wrote:

It is not at the heart of the questions I asked.

igm wrote:

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.

Frank Apisa wrote:

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”…

It's at the heart and is very important and you now it. Frank I'm disappointed in you. Try to change my mind... or not... up to you.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

If i ever had any reason to believe that you know what civility is, i might listen to what you have to say. But i see no evidence of that, so it's hilarious to see you make such a comment.

I'm losing nothing here, Frank. It's a pathetic online trick to attempt to paint your interlocutor as emotional, so that you can imply that you are the voice of cool reason. It's a sad trick, and an unconvincing one. The only thing that is lost here is a reasonable response on your part to my criticisms of your post, and in particular, a plausible basis for your contention that there may be gods. Take your time, i'll keep waiting.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know