Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

“

Quote:

The complete non-necessity for them to exist” is not actually evidence that gods do not exist…anymore than the complete non-necessity for sentient beings to exist on any planet circling the nearest three suns to Sol is evidence that no sentient beings exist on any of those planets.

No, Frank, you're missing what the words "gods" means= Supernatural beings,
Beings which exist outside of this natural world with powers and influence over this natural world. So, there it is.
They could not exist without intervening in the natural laws and order of this existence, right?
So, the fact that the natural world continues unimpeded is evidence of their non-existence.
Joe(we are doing just fine without them)Nation

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Do you dispute Frank that if there is no God we are all clockwork oranges? If so will you explain why?

Spendius, if by "clockwork oranges", you mean that we are all free to be savages with no regard for "civilized behavior"...then I would say we are all clockwork oranges whether there is a GOD or not. I am not saying that all of us act this kind of uncivilized behavior out, but that we are all capable of it.

We certainly can do whatever we choose, and there are plenty of instances of human behavior that far exceed the conduct of the rampaging youths of the Anthony Burgess novel. And like the rampaging youths of the novel (British Edition) there are instances of enlightenment and redemption even among the worst of humans.

So I do not dispute it…but I do not think it necessary for there to be no-GOD in order for us to be clockwork oranges. (If I read your “clockwork oranges” correctly.)

1 Reply

@spendius,

Sorry I did not reply as soon as you deem appropriate, Spendius. How about we allow me some latitude in when I must reply?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I meant a tick-tock machine which has been constructed on a tabula rasa (conditioned) and has no free will as La Mettrie said based on Descartes' idea that animals are machines and humans being animals.

The Marquis de Sade merely followed the rather obvious logic.

Responsibility ceases to exist.

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Quote:

No, Frank, you're missing what the words "gods" means= Supernatural beings,
Beings which exist outside of this natural world with powers and influence over this natural world. So, there it is.

And you are saying that I missed that because….?

Quote:

They could not exist without intervening in the natural laws and order of this existence, right?

Are you saying that if a GOD exists, it is required to intervene in natural laws and order--it would not be allowed to allow everything to unfold chaotically?

Why is that?

Quote:

So, the fact that the natural world continues unimpeded is evidence of their non-existence.

I’m not sure what you mean by “continues unimpeded”, but why are you so sure it is “unimpeded?”

The world at times seems pretty fucked up…and there may be a god getting its rocks off making it be that way. The world at other times seems damn near perfect (at least for me)…and there may be a god enjoying that happening. How can you tell when if it is being guided…or if it is not?

Quote:

Joe(we are doing just fine without them)Nation

There are many who would challenge that!

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

I meant a tick-tock machine which has been constructed on a tabula rasa (conditioned) and has no free will as La Mettrie said based on Descartes' idea that animals are machines and humans being animals.

Oh! So why didn't you ask about a tick-tock machine which has been constructed on a tabula rasa (conditioned) and has no free will as La Mettrie said based on Descartes' idea that animals are machines and humans being animals?

Not sure why you chose “clockwork oranges” instead, but that doesn’t seem to be what Burgess had in mind.

Quote:

The Marquis de Sade merely followed the rather obvious logic.

So are you saying that the Marquis de Sade was a “clockwork orange?” And if so, are you then inferring that there are no gods?

Quote:

Responsibility ceases to exist.

In a sense, there is no responsibility--it has never existed so it cannot cease to exist. That is why we have laws to enforce some sense of conduct that allows for society to function, because there is no fundamental responsibility. We simply agree to a code of conduct...and hope that most will live up to it. No one HAS TO live up to those standards…and there are plenty who do not.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I had to go to the pub. Doctor's orders.

Quote:

Sorry I did not reply as soon as you deem appropriate, Spendius. How about we allow me some latitude in when I must reply?

You could have taken as much time as you like but when you use Joe's infantile nonsense as an excuse to put your record on again I am bound to conclude that your main interest is to get to the next page as soon as possible and consign my question to the oblivion of the previous page. They have been laying that stroke on me for years.

Had I said nothing my question would have passed without further comment I fear and you could have continued spouting over us the mantra for ever and ******* ever.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

I had to go to the pub. Doctor's orders

.

Good luck with the treatment.

Quote:

You could have taken as much time as you like but when you use Joe's infantile nonsense as an excuse to put your record on again I am bound to conclude that your main interest is to get to the next page as soon as possible and consign my question to the oblivion of the previous page. They have been laying that stroke on me for years.

Had I said nothing my question would have passed without further comment I fear and you could have continued spouting over us the mantra for ever and ******* ever.

Sorry others have been ignoring you or otherwise "laying that stroke on you for years."

I attempted to respond quickly...and I am sorry I was not quick enough in your opinion. I had to go to the loo. Doctor's orders.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

They have been laying that stroke on me for years

Yeh, like Im responsible for your gobbledeegook. Even Frank is getting disenchanted, I can tell.
Joe made great sense in his usual succinct and writerly fashion.
You just wander around the barnyard hoping you step in something interesting.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Oh! So why didn't you ask about a tick-tock machine which has been constructed on a tabula rasa (conditioned) and has no free will as La Mettrie said based on Descartes' idea that animals are machines and humans being animals?

Because I thought an educated gentleman such as your good self would know what Burgess meant by a clockwork orange having read why he objected to what Kubrick did with it.

The Divine Marquis knew he was a clockwork orange. That's why he spent so many years locked up.

Quote:

In a sense, there is no responsibility--it has never existed so it cannot cease to exist. That is why we have laws to enforce some sense of conduct that allows for society to function, because there is no fundamental responsibility. We simply agree to a code of conduct...and hope that most will live up to it. No one HAS TO live up to those standards…and there are plenty who do not.

Pure sophistry.

I have come to the conclusion that this topic scares you guys. When organisms start avoiding things you can be sure they are scared of them.

Have you ever heard of the biological concept of "preferred pathways"? They are like rabbit runs in the central nervous system.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

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.

You do not seem to understand my position or you are trying to dodge the obvious.

If I were to use the logic you are using with the God concept I would think that it should also be used with all other man made concepts and it just does not seem to make any sense to give concepts that much credit when they lack evidence.

Being agnostic about God and not being agnostic about other things that lack evidence seems to be lacking logical consistency.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I attempted to respond quickly...and I am sorry I was not quick enough in your opinion. I had to go to the loo.

Oh yeah. Time for Joe though eh?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Even Frank is getting disenchanted, I can tell.

Mi knees is knocking and I'm in a muck sweat about that? You're a poor judge of a man fm.

Joe's interjection was idiotic, infantile, off topic and banal.

There's nothing remotely interesting in this barnyard except the viewers.

2 Replies

@spendius,

I have to admit though that little groups chattering amongst themselves probably serves a useful social function.

0 Replies

@spendius,

You are just deathly jealous of Joe's really good writing,Because you, contrary to what facts pertain, still picture yourself as something of a witty writer.
Newsflash, you are the master of the obvious, the banal, the trite, and the grand-master of run-on glossololia

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

You do not seem to understand my position or you are trying to dodge the obvious.

I understand your position, RL…and I am not trying to dodge it--not in any way.

You simply are unwilling to give credence to my position.

Quote:

If I were to use the logic you are using with the God concept I would think that it should also be used with all other man made concepts and it just does not seem to make any sense to give concepts that much credit when they lack evidence.

Interesting concept..."other man made concepts."

Let's try this one more time: RL, I feel as though I have enough evidence upon which to base a guess that here are no purple CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn; I feel as though I have enough evidence upon which to base a guess there are no flying spaghetti monsters; I feel as though I have enough evidence upon which to base a guess there are no polka dotted unicorns on planet Earth.

I feel I do not have enough evidence upon which to base a guess that there are no gods involved in the Reality of existence.

I am an agnostic always. But there are times when I feel comfortable making guesses about certain things…particularly the childish things atheists bring into discussions like this.

Quote:

Being agnostic about God and not being agnostic about other things that lack evidence seems to be lacking logical consistency.

Perhaps to an atheist trying desperately to denigrate an agnostic perspective. To an agnostic like myself, it is not lacking in logical consistency at all.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Oh yeah. Time for Joe though eh?

Joe and I meet for drinks a lot...and he often buys me beer.

I thought you would understand.

Thomas buys me beers, too. So if he comments, I will push him to the head of the line also.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I feel as though I have enough evidence

How do you {feel} for evidence? This is new to me. You also make a guess, is this a logical way of doing things? I would think that logic takes probabilities into account and I see the probabilities to be about the same for a God or a spaghetti monster being they are concepts with absolutely no provable evidence..

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

You are just deathly jealous of Joe's really good writing,Because you, contrary to what facts pertain, still picture yourself as something of a witty writer.

He,he,he. Ho,ho,ho. Ha,ha ha.

Joe couldn't write his way out of a paper bag. Fancy addressing a guy Frank's age and a thread of this size like this--

Quote:

No, Frank, you're missing what the words "gods" means= Supernatural beings,
Beings which exist outside of this natural world with powers and influence over this natural world. So, there it is.
They could not exist without intervening in the natural laws and order of this existence, right?
So, the fact that the natural world continues unimpeded is evidence of their non-existence.
Joe(we are doing just fine without them)Nation.

James Joyce wrote--

Quote:

The artist, like the God of the creation, remains within or behind or beyond or above his handiwork, invisible, refined out of existence, indifferent, paring his fingernails.

And what on earth does it mean that we are doing just fine without God? How does he know that when 90% of Americans believe in "something" (a euphemism for God) and there are churches everywhere and Bibles in the White House. Who is "we"?

Joe, like the rest of you, is an impressionistic critic. A pull-face merchant. His "register" is mock-tabloidal. Not a scintilla of sprezzatura in sight. The "negative capability" is absent. Like you fm, he actually thinks, contra Derrida, that the words he utters have a meaning. I bet Frank is not agnostic about what his own words mean.

A2K is proof of Derida's principle that the meaning of words does not reside in the signifiers.

For example, the meaning of Joe's last post is not determined by what he said but by yours and Frank's relation to him personally or his stance in this debate.

Similarly your statement that I picture myself as something of a witty writer is a fatuity in fact but it has mileage for those who need or desire it to have. My fans don't accept them in the same way your fans do. Thus they have different meanings and possibly a large number depending on how many different people read them.

I feel a certain sympathy is in order for those who read them with the same meaning you intended.

What you need fm are a few lessons in Meiosis. As it stands your style is Roadside Billboard in turnip country. I should think that even an average intellectual would burst out laughing in the first stretch of one of your pronouncements.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I think some of you are so rattled at the thought that God might be female that you shut out the idea that God exists at all to negate the notion.

Surely you wouldn't argue with the idea that the female intelligently designed NFL?

I can understand an atheist's contempt for Pascal's Wager but an agnostic is another matter. Refusing a bet to nothing is absurd. Especially when the dividend is infinite bliss.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know