Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Frank Apisa,

You ask the question(s) I will answer it/them.

0 Replies

@igm,

igm...this game is getting stale!

You quoted the two questions just a few posts ago. Go back, read your posts, answer the questions you claimed "your friend" answered...and we can move along.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

Setanta that's the best response to Frank I have recently read.

Oh--I don't know about that ed. It contains this--

Quote:

If i believe something, it's because there is evidence and/or a plausible, logical reason to believe it. I don't happen to believe in any god because there is no evidence, and there is nothing plausible or logical about that superstition.

which is tautological. There is no evidence of any god but it's an unevidenced assumption that there is "nothing plausible or logical" in the belief in gods. The last nine words in the second sentence can be translated as "bullshit".

Such mistakes derive from a few sources but for reasons of delicacy I will only draw attention, for now, to the error of thinking of science as a closed off system separated from society despite it being completely enmeshed in it and dependent upon it. It's test tubes are made in glass factories. Excavating the best sand, transporting it, processing it into test tubes, packing them in boxes containing various numbers depending on funds the scientific institution has generated, distributing them, unpacking them and stacking them on racks conveniently to hand for the researcher, having substances placed in them from bottles on other racks, heated or frozen, as the case may be, using gas piped in from Alaska or electricity from the Grand Coulee Dam, a colour change, some fizzing and EUREKA!! --90% of the folks involved in the process of providing the test tubes, or the microscopes, or the gas chromatography contraption, or getting to the research station from a lying start when the alarm clock went off, are proved to be complete ******* idiots raddled with a raft of weird superstitions and should all be shot or led away and dealt with in one of the thousands of President Farmerman's re-education centres.

That's why it's a waste of time and energy except in regard to it providing opportunities for informative and sensible posts such as this to appear. It's Ivory Tower shite.

What happens is something like this. The youthful fantasies about being an NFL player become more and more ridiculous as time takes its toll and are replaced by fantasies about being professors of philosophy in some august seminary of the Higher Learning and it is well known that such fantasies can be indulged right up to the last gasp. Commissars of education fantasies or somesuch serve the same psychological function. The need to present an image to the self in the best possible light.

As a double-dyed, shagged out old has been with my biological necessities I have no need to bother with such claptrap.

I just don't want the village church to be knocked down. It looks so beautiful when the bells are pealing over the fields of ripening corn to call the pretty maidens to evensong in their best outfits and flashing dangerous glances from side to side.

One really does have to think about such things.

We are, as a generality, much more impressed by a president saying he will "uphold the....you know" with a Bible in his hand than if he simply says that he will. No matter how persuasively he affirms it. That's why he has a Bible in his hand. It wouldn't really do to conclude that him having a Bible in his hand is proof that he is a complete ******* idiot raddled with a raft of weird superstitions. Not really. In the reality of our existence I mean.

BTW--wande saying he doesn't mind these diversions is not proof that they are not off topic, are not trolling and don't belong on the philosophy forum. Or even that they make any sense.

Perhaps the diversion is in response to a feeling that I am circling ever closer towards the target which is what Frank Harris' Sorbonne professor said it was and which is unmentionable on a family site such as this is presumably intended to be.

To snow over nice and smooth my rugged outlines. Frank has been brought back like a QB is brought back when the new one is getting pissed on.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

You quoted the two questions just a few posts ago. Go back, read your posts, answer the questions you claimed "your friend" answered...and we can move along.

Frank Apisa wrote:

What evidence do you see that gods exist?

What evidence do you see that gods do not exist?

I don't have any evidence that gods exist.

I don't have any evidence that gods do not exist.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

I don't have any evidence that gods exist.

I don't have any evidence that gods do not exist.

Great, neither do I. We are in agreement here, igm.

Two more questions…and then some discussion.

Do you see any evidence that there has to be a god to explain existence?

Do you see any evidence that there cannot possibly be any gods...that it is impossible for gods to exist?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
I don't have any evidence that gods exist.

I don't have any evidence that gods do not exist.

Great, neither do I. We are in agreement here, igm.

Two more questions…and then some discussion.

Do you see any evidence that there has to be a god to explain existence?

Do you see any evidence that there cannot possibly be any gods...that it is impossible for gods to exist?

No.
No.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I am not lying. You raised the issue...I did not.

Cue scene at St Trinians with two sixth-form students blurting "You did", "I did not", "Oh yes you did", "I jolly well did not", "Oh yes you jolly well did" (foot stamps), "I did no such thing, you're making it up", "I'm not", "You are you lying little slut", "look whose calling me a slut", "you are a slut", "I jolly well am not", " are"," mnot", "are", "mnot", "are" (lurches with satchel).

Come on men!!

The salient point Frank is stuck with is that if his position is superior as he claims then he is superior as a thinker to both sides. And those who agree with him can bask in the reflected glory. If both sides constitute the vast majority of the population Frank places himself in a very elite group.

Those who don't agree with him resent such a claim and especially so in a country like America where the ceremonies and rituals of the Emulative Comparison are so religiously adhered to and battled over with such fervour. They might suggest interviewing Frank's butler as a more objective method of determining his position in the hierarchies.

I assume, from my readings in psychology, that his early years were characterised by a plethora of pampering, cosseting and reassuring praise. They say we do a re-run of our earliest years when we reach the age Frank has reached.

It doesn't bother me that he thinks he's superior. I've met a lot of people with a similar view about themselves.

I remember gulping when I saw the National Insurance number I had been allotted.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

No.
No.

Good! Neither do I.

So…we are in agreement that there appears to be no evidence that there is a GOD (or are gods); we are in agreement that there appears to be no evidence that there are no gods; we are in agreement that there is no evidence that there has to be a god to explain existence; and we are in agreement that there is no evidence that it is impossible for gods to exist.

So we go back to the post that started this lengthy discussion. I wrote:

Hey Farmerman. Good to see you, too.

This topic seems to be one of the most popular on A2K. Seems like a dead end to me, though...and 5 years and 1000 posts seems to bear me out in that.

I tried to sum up my take on the issue in one of your threads on the issue, in what was an almost axiomatic comment.

It went along the lines of: IF there is the possibility of a GOD…there is the possibility of intelligent design.

Mind you, I did not say there is a GOD…I did not even say there is the possibility of a GOD…I merely said “IF THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF A GOD.”

I got lambasted. The opponents of Intelligent Design could not even acknowledge the obvious…the truism aspect of that comment.

It may seem trivial, but it isn't.

Unless someone is willing to assert there is no possibility of a GOD (which would require an element of proof to establish) then there truly is the possibility of Intelligent Design.

Of course, the Intelligent Design would have had to be the kind of thing scientists are unraveling in their testing of the various theories of evolution.

Come to think about it, the only kind of Intelligent Design that really makes sense would be some variation of natural evolution! Otherwise the only thing an Intelligent Designer would make is other GODS.

http://able2know.org/topic/50511-967#post-4852821

So, we are in agreement that “IF there is the possibility of a GOD…there is the possibility of intelligent design”…which, of course, is the topic under discussion in this thread. (I'll bet some people here thought this was all a diversion from the issue of the thread!)

We (you and I now that we are in agreement) cannot logically say, “There is no possibility of Intelligent Design” as some here suggest is the case; we cannot logically say, “Intelligent Design does exist” as some here suggest is the case; we (you and I now that we are in agreement) CAN logically say, “On the issue of Intelligent Design…we do not know.”

That’s all.

Any discussion from your side?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

The salient point Frank is stuck with is that if his position is superior as he claims then he is superior as a thinker to both sides. And those who agree with him can bask in the reflected glory. If both sides constitute the vast majority of the population Frank places himself in a very elite group.

I have acknowledge clearly that intelligent, reasonable, well-intentioned people can disagree with me. I have not asserted that I am a superior thinker to both sides…I simply am stating that “I do not know” the answers to the questions at hand…and I consider acknowledging that “I do not know” to be superior to guessing in either direction.

Not sure why you are trying to characterize my position the way you are, Spendius, but if it makes you happy…so be it.

AND...Set DID bring the issue up first...I did not.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

We (you and I now that we are in agreement) cannot logically say, “There is no possibility of Intelligent Design” as some here suggest is the case; we cannot logically say, “Intelligent Design does exist” as some here suggest is the case; we (you and I now that we are in agreement) CAN logically say, “On the issue of Intelligent Design…we do not know.”

That’s all.

Any discussion from your side?

Ok. I'll go along with that. Is that all you have to say on agnosticism and its logical consequence pertaining to Intelligent Design?

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Ok. I'll go along with that. Is that all you have to say on agnosticism and its logical consequence pertaining to Intelligent Design?

That is the only point I really was trying to make in this thread (there were a few side issues), but if you have some other avenue you would like to explore, I will consider it. I doubt Wandel will object (the thread has been running since April '05!)...so unless you (or others) have further discussion points...and since we are in tight agreement on the essentials...I have nothing further to pursue here.

Do you have anything further to discuss?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Welcome back, Frank!

1 Reply

@igm,

Good to see you, too, igm.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I have acknowledge clearly that intelligent, reasonable, well-intentioned people can disagree with me. I have not asserted that I am a superior thinker to both sides…I simply am stating that “I do not know” the answers to the questions at hand…and I consider acknowledging that “I do not know” to be superior to guessing in either direction.

Whether or not a pedantic interpretation of those words would possibly reveal that you don't think you are necessarily superior to both sides, a bashful assertion one might say, the ordinary person, such as is said to be born at the rate of one per minute, which I don't believe, will take it that you are alluding, hinting and generally flagging up that you are a superior person and using this thread in a vain and very tiresome attempt to prove it.

Hence your terrier-like determination.

Quote:

Not sure why you are trying to characterize my position the way you are, Spendius, but if it makes you happy…so be it.

I am simply probing the genesis of "agnosticism". One assumes agnostics are roughly similar so I might be said to be probing the genesis of "agnosticism" generally.

Your condescending tone to people who insult you is almost regal.

I'm interested in how I got the way I am. Are you not? Don't tell me that you see your present self as hanging on a tree as you seem to think the world around you is.

2 Replies

@spendius,

As Isis Unveiled was mentioned earlier I thought it might be worthwhile to quote a passage from Chap. IX of Vol. I.

Quote:

The whole Darwinian theory of natural selection is included in the first six chapters of the Book of Genesis. The "Man" of chapter i. is radically different from the "Adam" of chapter ii., for the former was created "male and female" — that is, bi-sexed — and in the image of God; while the latter, according to verse seven, was formed of the dust of the ground, and became "a living soul," after the Lord God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." Moreover, this Adam was a male being, and in verse twenty we are told that "there was not found a helpmeet for him." The Adonai, being pure spiritual entities, had no sex, or rather had both sexes united in themselves, like their Creator; and the ancients understood this so well that they represented many of their deities as of dual sex. The Biblical student must either accept this interpretation, or make the passages in the two chapters alluded to absurdly contradict each other. It was such literal acceptance of passages that warranted the atheists in covering the Mosaic account with ridicule, and it is the dead letter of the old text that begets the materialism of our age. Not only are these two races of beings thus clearly indicated in Genesis, but even a third and a fourth one are ushered before the reader in chapter iv., where the "sons of God" and the race of "giants" are spoken of. [.quote]

Helena Blavatsky.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Your condescending tone to people who insult you is almost regal.

Wow!

I am condescending in tone to people who insult me.

And my "condescending tone" is almost regal.

Okay, let me give it a shot:

Did you have help creating that sentence, Spendius, or did you actually come up with it yourself?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I copied it out of a book I have Frank. We all copy our sentences from other printed sources in one way or another.

I can tell though that your question is all your own work. It's too original to be in any books.

1 Reply

I'm lazy, and i'm no damned good at searching this site for quotes, so i tend not to bother. But i'm getting tired of Frank's lying, so i took the trouble--and this is just three quotes. As i said at the outset of this latest passage of intellectual arms, Frank has been claiming literally for years that his position is superior (this first quote, at the very beginning of the thread of which it as a part was more than eight and half years ago).

On Thursday, July 3, 2003 . . .

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am an agnostic -- and I consider the agnostic position to be superior to the theistic or atheistic position.

On Monday, August 1, 2005 . . .

Frank Apisa wrote:

...refusing to guess and pretend that it is not a guess by calling it a belief...is definitely superior to guessing and pretending it is not a guess by calling it a belief.

On Friday, February 6, 2009 . . .

Frank Apisa wrote:

The only reason agnostics claim moral superiority over athesits...is that they are!

Several people in this thread have shown why this claim is beggared by his selective agnosticism, i don't need to go over it again.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Wow…Set, you went all the way back to 2003 to look stuff up for me. I love ya, Buddy…you are alright in my book no matter what these other people say about you.

I agree with what I said back in 2003 (WOW, all the way back to 2002!!). I am an agnostic…and in my opinion I consider the agnostic position to be superior to the theistic or atheistic position. I have adequately explained what I mean by that…and I have acknowledged that people can disagree. Fine.

I agree with what I said back in August of 2005 (Jeez, I cannot get over the fact that you went through all this trouble for me). In my opinion, refusing to guess and pretend that it is not a guess by calling it a belief...is definitely superior to guessing and pretending it is not a guess by calling it a belief.

You may disagree with that…and so might some intelligent, well-intentioned, reasonable people, but that is my opinion.

I actually disagree with what I wrote in February 2009. The quote is: “The only reason agnostics claim moral superiority over athesits...is that they are!”

Not only did I spell “atheists” wrong…I should not have used the word “moral” in there. It was a response to someone using the word “moral superiority”…and I should have changed it to “logical superiority.” My bad!

I no longer have a position that Agnosticism is “morally” superior to atheism, if I ever had. I suspect this had to do with the context of the remark to which I was replying, but whether it is a single instance or one of several, I no longer maintain that position.

IN ANY CASE, SET…YOU RAISED THIS ISSUE HERE…I did not.

That is what I said. I said YOU raised the issue here...I did not. And nothing you have presented here changes that.

I came back to A2K; said hello to a few people; got into a discussion with Farmerman about the "possibility of a god/possibility of Intelligent Design"...when you came along and raised the issue.

No getting away from that! It is here in black and white.

So all this "research" is wasted. It does not impact on what I said in the least.

But thanks for doing it anyway. I'm glad I am still able to motivate you to such extreme moves.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

I copied it out of a book I have Frank. We all copy our sentences from other printed sources in one way or another.

I see.

Quote:

I can tell though that your question is all your own work. It's too original to be in any books.

Okay...but it was an attempt to be condescending...and almost regal.

How'd I do?

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know