Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@spendius,

Quote:

Give it a rest Frank for ****'s sake. It's getting tiresome you continually repeating yourself.

Of course there is something underhanded going on. You are trying to parlez an average intelligence into intellectual superiority using adolescent insights of no originality.

We all know there is no evidence for God existing. Or not existing. But there is evidence that if we proceed in one or other of the choices we get a certain result. Agnosticism produces catatonia. i.e. not proceeding anywhere but having a free ride on those who proceed as if God exists and take their achievements as though they would have happened without them doing. A ridiculous position.

Golf derives from our God.

Thank you for this input, Spendius. Your insights are very interesting.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Good to see you here again Frank. I hope things are going well for you.

I agree with the consistency of your agnostic position. Whether one considers the scientific explanations of evolution or even the cosmological origins of the material universe, one encounters the inherent limits of science. The standard cosmological explanations of origins involve the big bang and a still not fully understood or explained sequence of events in the first small intervals of time (i.e. "inflation" as it is called. The proper mathematical term for the Big Bang is a "singularity", the definition of which is something that can neither be explained nor described.

The standard materialist response to any question regarding what caused the Big Bang goes something like " ... before the singularity there was no mass, space or, consistent with general relativity, time. Thus asking what came before the big bang is like asking what is north of the north pole ..." Thus the materialist eaxplanation for the origin oif the observable universe is that it was started by something they can neither explain nor describe , and that questions about that are not allowed. Not a very impressive or appealing bit of logic by any standard, and hardly a meaningful answer to a very basic question. The notion that this circular illogic somehow eliminates all alternative suppositions is clearly absurd.

A somewhat analogous situation exists with respect to evolution. That the evolution of species of all kinds exists and continues in today's world is an observable fact - not merely a theory. However, whether that explains the existence of living cells or the organisms we call life is another matter, and a bridge that science has not yet crossed.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Spendius answered your question for all of us already and I agree with him now answer mine.
Are you agnostic about elf **** in space?
Do you have any evidence that there are elves in space? Do you have any evidence there are no elves in space?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

If in fact you DO see any evidence that gods exist…please present it. If you DO see evidence that gods do not exist…please present it…otherwise I am going to assume your hypothetical is not really a hypothetical at all…and that you DO NOT see any evidence that gods exist or that they do not exist.

I don't see 'it' yet so don't ass-u-me... anything yet.

'Gods' (plural) is to broad a term. You can take my word for it or I could explain, it's up to you? If you agree we will focus on a creator God.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Also (see my post above as well) your brand of agnostism will fail because of what was said earlier:

InfraBlue wrote:

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.

RL is also on to this chink in your armor. Huxley never fell for such a narrow view as yours.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Hey George...good to see ya.

Thanks for the comments.

Taking a break from the game to see what is happening here.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Frank Spendius answered your question for all of us already and I agree with him now answer mine.
Are you agnostic about elf **** in space?
Do you have any evidence that there are elves in space? Do you have any evidence there are no elves in space?

RL...do you see any evidence there are gods (or there is a GOD)? Do you see any evidence there are no gods? If you do, please state it so we can discuss it.

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

I don't see 'it' yet so don't ass-u-me... anything yet.

'Gods' (plural) is to broad a term. You can take my word for it or I could explain, it's up to you? If you agree we will focus on a creator God.

Sorry, I thought you understood that your term for yourself "atheist" comes from the Greek through the French...and means "without gods"...plural.

I prefer to use the plural.

So, do you have evidence that there are gods (or is a GOD)...and do you have evidence that there are no gods?

If you do, just state it...or acknowledge that you have no evidence in either direction...and then we can move on to my next two-part question.

1 Reply

@igm,

Don't worry about chinks in my armor, igm. If you could just answer the question I asked you, that would be nice.

0 Replies

Back to the ball game.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

igm wrote:

... your brand of agnostism will fail because of what was said earlier:

InfraBlue wrote:

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.

RL is also on to this chink in your armor. Huxley never fell for such a narrow view as yours.

That's me for today... if anyone else wants to take up this argument then go ahead... my argument is not the same one. As you all know it's on Wiki if you don't know it already.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Back to the ball game of logical inconsistencies. Drunk

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Are you agnostic about elf **** in space?

Wow rl--your creativity is on lift off. Stuck on the launch pad with PUs with YDs and FSM is no good. Take it away.

If astronauts were not so respectable there might be a pair of panties on the moon. Or in orbit. Perhaps there are the latter. Who could resist such a jape.

There is astronaut **** in space. Lots of it. It's bound to be reducing sunlight reaching the earth causing global cooling.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendi, You throw out more **** than all the astronauts who went into space. Your kind of **** is cyber-pollution.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I prefer to use the plural.

So, do you have evidence that there are gods (or is a GOD)...and do you have evidence that there are no gods?

If you do, just state it...or acknowledge that you have no evidence in either direction...and then we can move on to my next two-part question.

Since you insist on using the term 'gods' that means that as you don't know the number of gods there are, there could be an infinite number of gods... is that correct?

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Since you insist on using the term 'gods' that means that as you don't know the number of gods there are, there could be an infinite number of gods... is that correct?

I have been essentially a lone voice arguing an agnostic perspective with a half-dozen or more relentless atheists, igm. I have attempted to be as reasonable and courteous as possible; I've tried not to indulge in jibes (with the exception of a few rather mild return salvos at Set); and I have answered dozens upon dozens of questions—often answering the same question several times.

I have now insisted I will no longer indulge you on any other questions until after my questions are answered, discussed, and a few follow-ups taken. Out of courtesy to you, I have relented and answered a few more…and otherwise responded to your posts—but no more.

Here is what I wrote ten or so pages ago:

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.

I have been arguing these points with atheists for decades now and I have never had an atheist answer those two questions with anything other than variations of "Atheists cannot produce any evidence gods (or a GOD) exist" or "gods are not necessary to explain existence"...neither of which is evidence that gods do not exist.

If you absolutely must also have the question (as you question up above implies): What evidence that you see that a GOD exists?…obviously that always could have been included as a sidebar answer—so include it. But until you answer my questions and allow for the evaluation and follow-up, I am not answering any more of your questions.

1 Reply

Return salvoes? What a great braying jackass. You started this ****, ass wipe, you have deserved every shot i took at you. Whiney little bitch.

2 Replies

You''ve been making passive-aggressive, snide remarks since you came back. Saying "i'm here for ya Buddy,' and "i love ya, Buddy" dosen't negate your sneers. You constantly attempt to suggest that i get emotional, because you don't have an answer for my criticisms of your bullshit. Just as you don't have any good answers for igm, for Infrablue or anyone else here. You've just got your shop worn, unconvincing litany of self-congratulatory and illogical appeals to specious "logic." In your idiot thread years ago when you attempted to claim that conservatives are always on the wrong side of every important issue (a fallacy of composition--not that you'll understand that), i ripped your bullshit to shreds on the historical evidencce. Your eventual response was "**** you," and you got banned for it. Well i've got good news for ya, Frank, Old Buddy . . . you can say **** you to me to your heart's content, and you won't get banned for it. You can continue to preach your witless religion which only stands up because you assume fallaciously that atheists and theists are just holders of opposing beliefs.

Go ahead, Frank, say **** you. It would be the first honest thing you've said to me since you came back. Hyocrite. Liar.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

You''ve been making passive-aggressive, snide remarks since you came back. Saying "i'm here for ya Buddy,' and "i love ya, Buddy" dosen't negate your sneers. You constantly attempt to suggest that i get emotional, because you don't have an answer for my criticisms of your bullshit. Just as you don't have any good answers for igm, for Infrablue or anyone else here. You've just got your shop worn, unconvincing litany of self-congratulatory and illogical appeals to specious "logic." In your idiot thread years ago when you attempted to claim that conservatives are always on the wrong side of every important issue (a fallacy of composition--not that you'll understand that), i ripped your bullshit to shreds on the historical evidencce. Your eventual response was "**** you," and you got banned for it. Well i've got good news for ya, Frank, Old Buddy . . . you can say **** you to me to your heart's content, and you won't get banned for it. You can continue to preach your witless religion which only stands up because you assume fallaciously that atheists and theists are just holders of opposing beliefs.

Go ahead, Frank, say **** you. It would be the first honest thing you've said to me since you came back. Hyocrite. Liar.

Always interested to read your remarks, Set. That is the truth.

As I've said before, I do pity you, because you seem like such an unhappy person--and so unnecessarily and inappropriately given to anger! And that is the truth also.

Thanks for writing.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Return salvoes? What a great braying jackass. You started this ****, ass wipe, you have deserved every shot i took at you. Whiney little bitch.

Nope, you started it, Set.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know