Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
But the idea of a god involved in the nature of reality falls into the category of supernatural things and beings such as unicorns and fairies and gods themselves as well.

Okay…let’s suppose for the sake of this particular part of the discussion that is correct. Where does that lead us?

It leads us to the fact that you are being selective about your agnosticism. You dismiss certain ideas about supernatural things about which to be agnostic, but not your own.

Quote:

Quote:
Are you equally agnostic about Shesha, the serpent upon which Vishnu lies on an ocean of milk from where Brahma, emerging from a lotus flower in Vishnu's navel created the world?

I am always agnostic, IB. But there are times when I feel I have enough evidence upon which to base what I consider to be a meaningful guess. There are other times when I think a guess is not warranted…that the subject matter being considered is not something I really want to consider.

That's exactly the point. You're selective about your agnosticism. You aren't always agnostic. This selectivity is subjective not objective.

Quote:

So, yes, I am agnostic agnostic about Shesha, the serpent upon which Vishnu lies on an ocean of milk from where Brahma, emerging from a lotus flower in Vishnu's navel created the world? (I’m taking your word for all that.) Mostly, my feelings would be that I would not hazard a guess about this because I have not studied the issue enough to make a meaningful guess…and the subject matter is not something I really am interested in considering.

That creation myth which you dismiss is one of the Hindu creation myths which is found in the Vishnu Purana.

Quote:

In consideration of your question, however, I will allow that it sounds kinda dubious to me…as does the god and the story of creation described in the Bible.

The fact that those things sound dubious to me, however, does not mean I would reach a conclusion that it is impossible for gods to exist. And if it is possible for gods to exist…and since I can see no probative evidence for or against the existence of gods…the most logical thing I can say (in my opinion) is that I do not know if they exist or not.

Here, you're being selectively agnostic about some creation stories involving gods in the nature of reality and not others, namely your own musings about the possibility of a reality involving gods which are themselves contrived and humanly invented (in this case, by you yourself).

Quote:

Quote:
Are you agnostic about that creation myth as equally as you are agnostic about unicorns and fairies?

Yes, I am. I am always agnostic.

You've demonstrated that you are selectively agnostic. You dismiss certain things from your agnosticism but not others, namely your own musings about gods and their involvement in the nature of reality.

Quote:

But as I have mentioned many times, agnostics can know things (2+2=4 & there is no elephant in my top right desk drawer)...and they can make guesses when they think a guess is appropriate. My guess on the serpent god Shesha, upon which Vishnu lies on an ocean of milk from where Brahma, emerging from a lotus flower in Vishnu's navel created the world…is that it sounds dubious; it sounds contrived and humanly invented. The creation myth (as you call it; and as I have often referred to it as) seems dubious also. My guess is that both are probably creations of humans in an attempt to explain the unknown.

This includes any of your own musings as to "gods being involved in the nature of reality."

Quote:

None of that is evidence that gods do not exist, however…and none of that would cause me to suppose that gods are not possible.

So I am back to where I was earlier. I do not know if gods exist; I do not know that gods do not exist; I do not see enough evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction.

You are back to your selective agnosticism, dubious about other people's creation stories in which gods are involved in the nature of reality, but not your own, and then egotistically, you demand that others accept agnosticism about your own musings about gods being involved in the nature of reality.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue…not sure where you were going with that last post of yours, but if the main point you were trying to make is that when dealing with an unknown…sometimes I do not have enough evidence upon which to base a guess about it and sometimes I do have enough…

...ahhh, yeah...

…but why even bring that up?

Let us take the question of “Are there any sentient beings living on the planets circling the nearest three stars to Sol?”

My response would be, “I do not know…and I do not have enough evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess.”

If the follow up question were, “Are there any sentient beings living on any planet other than Earth in our Solar System?’…I certainly would not respond the same way.

Why would you think it inconsistent to respond differently to different things?

For certain I do not KNOW what is or is not living on all the other planets in our Solar System…but I certainly can feel I have enough evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess.

So I do not understand your point.

The questions I am ultimately dealing with are variations on, “What is the nature of Existence?” “What is the Reality of existence?”

Some people have proposed that it is attributable to gods.

I am not nuts about that idea…and see absolutely no reason for it. Certainly the notion of “gods” is not essential to explain the Reality…or to explain existence.

But I cannot dismiss it as absurd…or impossible—and since it is proposed in response to something I find interesting (What is the nature of Reality)…I try to deal with it. I also acknowledge that I do not know if the notion of gods actually plays a part…I see no evidence that gods are necessary or that gods definitely exist…and I do not see any evidence that it is impossible for gods to exist or that gods do not exist.

AND I DO NOT SEE ENOUGH EVIDENCE UPON WHICH TO BASE A MEANINGFUL GUESS IN EITHER DIRECTION.

What is the problem you have with that?

My response to your question about Shesha was:

I am always agnostic, IB. But there are times when I feel I have enough evidence upon which to base what I consider to be a meaningful guess. There are other times when I think a guess is not warranted…that the subject matter being considered is not something I really want to consider.

So, yes, I am agnostic agnostic about Shesha, the serpent upon which Vishnu lies on an ocean of milk from where Brahma, emerging from a lotus flower in Vishnu's navel created the world? (I’m taking your word for all that.) Mostly, my feelings would be that I would not hazard a guess about this because I have not studied the issue enough to make a meaningful guess…and the subject matter is not something I really am interested in considering.

In consideration of your question, however, I will allow that it sounds kinda dubious to me…as does the god and the story of creation described in the Bible.

The fact that those things sound dubious to me, however, does not mean I would reach a conclusion that it is impossible for gods to exist. And if it is possible for gods to exist…and since I can see no probative evidence for or against the existence of gods…the most logical thing I can say (in my opinion) is that I do not know if they exist or not.

I stand by that response.

Not sure why you think that because I respond one way under one set of circumstances…I must respond that exact same way under all others.

Anyway…tell me:

What evidence do you see that gods exist?

What evidence do you see that gods do not exist?

Do you see any evidence to indicate that the existence of a GOD or gods is necessary to explain existence?

Do you see any evidence to indicate that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible?

Let’s discuss you answers.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Lots of unqualified, unbounded assertions here - none of them true.

We do see a lot of that coming from Set, don't we?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

As a matter of fact, these aren't unfounded assertions. Frank has sung his song over and over and over again. Everyone here has gone after the inconsistency of his agnosticism, that he applies it to the question of whether or not there is a god, but not, for example, the existence of fairies, pixies and elves. I don't know of anyone here who alleges that there's anything wrong wtih taking the position that one will be agnostic about the existence of a god. The problem is Frank's insistence that this is an intellectually superior point of view. It is not, of course, because it is not a consistent point of view--he is only selectively agnostic.

As for your unqualified, unfounded assertion that none of what i have said is true, well, i'm used to you showing up in the middle of an argument and sticking your oar in without really knowing either the exact subject nor the history of the argument.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, the self-proclaimed paragon of civility, once again cannot resist an opportunity for taking a cheap shot.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Yo, George...

...one more thing.

Not sure if you are a pro-football fan, but this coming weekend should be a gas between the folks out here near the Meadowlands...and those who live in the City by the Bay.

Should be a good game. Looking forward to it.

Now...back to being civil!

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I am not nuts about that idea…and see absolutely no reason for it. Certainly the notion of “gods” is not essential to explain the Reality…or to explain existence.

We are not dealing with existence Frank. We are dealing with a large, complex industrial/military organisation in a condition of general affluence which is, in certain quarters, try to decide whether Intelligent Design theory is a valid scientific alternative to evolution theory or whether it is simply a religion.

I have been trying to maintain that it is a scientific theory on the grounds that a general version of ID theory, with minor variations (sects, franchises, heresies etc,) determined by such things as class, geography, tradition, race, nationality and predatory emulation, has led to the affluent and powerful organisation we live in and is a necesaary condition for that organisation to develop and that evolution theory can only ever produce monkeys, at best.

So you should take your concerns down to the ******* zoo and start a seminar with the chimps.

Just as a chemist mixes substances the true nature of which will always elude him to get another substance of utility so ID theory mixes mental states to arrive in what is, if thought about a bit, a condition of fantastic convenience. Special shoes for example to prevent your feet slipping backwards when the equal and opposite reaction to your attempts to propel a golf ball forwards in the general direction of a flag placed in the hole to alert you to its position.

This is a pragmatic thread. Problems of pure existence and the nature of reality are the concern of philosophy. There is a lively forum for putative philosophers or for those seeking a way to drive themselves mad.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

We are not dealing with existence Frank.

WE????

Weird…I thought I decide what I am dealing with and you decide what you are dealing with.

There is no "we" in that thought, Spendius...unless you have a mouse in your pocket.

Quote:

There is a lively forum for putative philosophers or for those seeking a way to drive themselves mad.

Ahhh! Well, there are some who would suggest that in my case, it would not be drive, but rather a short pitch…or maybe even a putt.

Have a fine night, Spendius. Always enjoy the things you have to say…and the delightful way in which you say them.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I was speaking on behalf of the other regulars here Frank. Perhaps they will object.

I have a tentative hypothesis. You left A2K after becoming obsessed with golf. After a few years you were thrown out of every golf club in your vicinity for starting fights on the 19th.

So here you are.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

After a few years you were thrown out of every golf club in your vicinity for starting fights on the 19th.

Do you think it took that many rounds of explaining agnosticism?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Now you are getting all upset.

Not me Frank... like I said at the beginning... quite frankly it's irrelevant! Laughing

... or put another way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankly,_my_dear,_I_don't_give_a_damn

0 Replies

Thanks guys…Spendius, RL, igm.

Whether this is a “pragmatic thread”; whatever my status re: “19th holes”; however long it takes to explain my agnostic position; whether or not the question of the Reality of existence is relevant to some of us and irrelevant to others…my point has been made.

None of you submitted any evidence that there are gods.

None of you submitted any evidence that there are no gods.

None of you submitted any evidence that gods (or a GOD) is necessary to explain existence.

None of you submitted any evidence that it is impossible for gods to exist.

Whether this was because you elected not to submit such evidence or because you simply could not…I stand by my original statement: On the question of what is the Reality of existence?…

…I do not know if gods exist; I do not know if gods do not exist; I see no evidence upon which I can base a meaningful guess in either direction.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Well, I did.
You deflected what I said by making up some new form of god out of whole cloth.

Joe(have it your way)Nation

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You're dead in the water Frank. By saying "none of you" you confirmed that you didn't understand my posts despite claiming that you did.

Quote:

I do not know if gods exist; I do not know if gods do not exist; I see no evidence upon which I can base a meaningful guess in either direction.

If that is all you can come up with at this stage then will you try to understand that I, and I can only speak for myself, have got that that is what you think and are standing on. I strongly suspect that the others have got it too. There is absolutely no need to continually repeat it. It is seared on my brain.

Do you know whether your post could have existed if our Christian God had never existed?

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Quote:

Well, I did

Jonathan....you did NOT. All you said was that there was absolutely no need for a god.

That is not evidence that there are no gods.

There is absolutely no need for a sparrow...but there are sparrows.

C'mon, if you want to be involved...get involved. If you are just here to break balls...just break balls, but don't claim that you are not just breaking balls and that you are actually offering evidence that gods exist or do not exist.

Quote:

You deflected what I said by making up some new form of god out of whole cloth.

I did not make up any gods. In fact I freely acknowledge that I cannot offer any evidence that gods exist...or that gods do not exist.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Spendius...thank you for whatever it was you were trying to say.

If you have any evidence to offer that there are gods; that there are no gods; that there has to be gods to explain existence; or that there can be no gods...

...offer it.

Or my post stands.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Doesn't everyone have to define what they mean by "God" before you can have these types of discussions. Otherwise some people may be addressing versions of "God" which are no different in probability than Unicorns and Easter Bunnies, while other people may be addressing versions of "God" which are extremely vague supernatural concepts. It seems to me you all need to decide on what type of concept you are using for "God" before you can have any meaningful discussion.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

True, that!

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Bloody hell Frank. For Gawd's sake man.

Nobody has any evidence that there are Gods. Or that there are no Gods. Or that there can be no Gods.

But there has to be our God to explain our existence. If you want to discuss "existence" in the abstract then it's philosophy. Another forum. Nobody on the philosophy threads knows what existence is in the abstract. And here on a science thread, a matter of fact subject, you want to use the word philosophically to square your circle.

It's an old trick. If it works in the company you keep well and good. It won't work here.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Doesn't everyone have to define what they mean by "God" before you can have these types of discussions. Otherwise some people may be addressing versions of "God" which are no different in probability than Unicorns and Easter Bunnies, while other people may be addressing versions of "God" which are extremely vague supernatural concepts. It seems to me you all need to decide on what type of concept you are using for "God" before you can have any meaningful discussion.

Thanks for the comment, Rosborne. If you look at what I have written, you will see that mostly I use the term "gods"...so as not to have to deal with that problem.

The fact is that the concept of "gods" MAY BE too difficult for the human mind to actually deal with. Dealing with all the POSSIBLE manifestations of gods MAY BE like attempting to explain quantum mechanics to a weasel.

Spendius is asserting it is impossible for "existence" without a GOD like the god he worships or acknowledges!!!

EdgarBlythe is asserting it is impossible for gods of any kind to exist.

Joe Nation is asserting that "there is no necessity for gods to exist" is evidence gods do not exist.

I am saying I do not know if gods exist and I can see no evidence or reasons for why they cannot exist. I'd go further than that...I see no evidence or reasons why they MAY not exist.

Atheism, in its classical sense (and the way it came into the English language), denies the existence of gods. Certainly many atheists deny that ANY gods exist...just as many insist gods cannot exist. As used today, it often asserts that it designates anyone who simply does not "believe in God"...which actually seems to be designating a particular god.

I have no problem with that...so long as they do not insist I must designate myself an atheist because I do not "believe in" the "God" they are talking about...nor any other gods for that matter. I also do not "believe" that no gods exist. I just think it makes more sense to designate the "I do not know; I see no evidence" position to be an agnostic position.

By all means, do not leave this discussion if you see something illogical in what I am saying. I am willing to discuss and explain anything I've said here.

2 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know