Intelligent Design is not creationism

Pascal's Wager is like strip poker -- in worrying about whether or not there is an afterlife, it leaves one naked in the wind.

0 Replies

I am just as amused, and not at all surprised, to see that George's best argument is Pascal's wager. Even Kierkegaard had to make a "leap of faith" in response to his "fear and loathing," his infection with the "sickness unto death," because there was no logical, philosophically sound basis for theism--hence, the necessity of the "leap."

0 Replies

I didn't offer the reference to Pascal's wager as an argument or even a recommendation. Instead I offered it to deflate Setanta's overinflated rhetoric and expressions of feigned amazement at my earlier reference to the idea behind it..

I have never denied the leap of faith required for even ultimate creationism. However I have noted that its alternative is also a more or less equivalent leap. I get no counter argument on that point - only Timber's assertion that Pascal's is a "sucker bet". Not very convincing.

0 Replies

You mean ID or evolution requires a "leap of faith?"

0 Replies

There is no leap, George--your silly protestations notwithstanding, and you peurile insults taken aside--in noting that one is not willing to believe that which is not demonstrated.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I have never denied the leap of faith required for even ultimate creationism. However I have noted that its alternative is also a more or less equivalent leap. I get no counter argument on that point - only Timber's assertion that Pascal's is a "sucker bet". Not very convincing.

My alternative is not "also a more or less equivalent leap." I do not propose an answer as the question of ultimate creation itself has dubious presumptions.

0 Replies

George,

Quote:

I get no counter argument on that point - only Timber's assertion that Pascal's is a "sucker bet". Not very convincing.

How about this one:
Pascals wager only 'works' if you devote yourself and worship ALL possible deities, and follow ALL the different dogma and beliefs(including the lack of them) associated with said beliefs/religions(or lack of them). Quite the impossible task unless you happen to exist simultaneously in different realities to avoid the many many contradictions and impossibilities you would face in so doing. Are you an multi-dimensional being, george?
If you are not able to accomplish this, you are still left with quite a conundrum on your hands. What if by worshipping the christian god you are pissing off the one true god, Vishnu? What if the one true god wants us to be atheists? Given his ability and penchant to remain totaly hidden, wouldn't it seem logical that he would?
Better rethink that whole 'pascals wager, thing, george. You don't seem like you have thought it through.

0 Replies

Right, the premise that it is always a better bet to believe in God is not demonstrable. It is in fact just as arguable that if there is a god, and if it matters whether we believe in this god or not, that this god could just as likely be favorable to those of independent of theistic belief and unfavorable to those of theistic belief.

0 Replies

georgeob1, you are a prime candidate for joining the Rational Theists as technically you do not have subscribe to religion to give equal credence to all the potential permutations of a potential creator.

Queen annie likes it!

0 Replies

Doktor,

I don't regard the notion of multiple "gods" as meaningful and therefore dismiss the possibility you suggest.

Setanta, Chumly, Tico et. al.

My point about equivalent leaps has to do with the belief in the future achievements of human physics on one hand and on a creator on the other. I have but one life to live and can't count on a timely external answer from either side. We all have a certain consciousness of ourselves and the world we inhabit. We have wants, emotions and an intellect that craves an understanding of the situation to give meaning to our actions. The evidence before us is clearly that physics cannot and is not likely ever to offer an explanation for our origin and existence. In these circumnstances a rational actor will clearly leve room for new information or understanding, but will also not necessarily opt for a suspension of belief, understanding and comprehension of his situation for the duration of the only life he will live. To blandly but one's trust in physics for a future explanation of existence is everey bit as much a leap of faith as is the belief in a creator.

0 Replies

You assumption that those with whom you disagree are devoted to a vision of "future achievements of human physics" is unwarranted. Your dichotomous stipulation that you have affair with those who oppose such a vision to the notion of a creator is groundless, and your argument therefore is hollow and without substance.

0 Replies

Your rhetoric consists merely of florid and condescending adjectives - no verbs or substance.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You assumption that those with whom you disagree are devoted to a vision of "future achievements of human physics" is unwarranted. Your dichotomous stipulation that you have affair with those who oppose such a vision to the notion of a creator is groundless, and your argument therefore is hollow and without substance.

Are you a little slow today, George? I've emphasized the verbs in the post you were willing to criticize, but not to answer. I suspect that is because you cannot answer those who haven't that "fear and loathing," who haven't that "sickness unto death" which necessitates a "leap of faith" in others--and who therefore will not fit into your dichotomous, simple-minded description--after all, they don't need anything to stand in the place of a "creator."

If you have any more problems with verbs, let me know, and i'll show you the verbs in the foregoing, as well.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

My point about equivalent leaps has to do with the belief in the future achievements of human physics on one hand and on a creator on the other. I have but one life to live and can't count on a timely external answer from either side.

It is a "leap" requiring suspension of objectivity and emipicality to conclude either that any such "question" exists or to assume that there must, even might be, an "answer".

Quote:

We all have a certain consciousness of ourselves and the world we inhabit. We have wants, emotions and an intellect that craves an understanding of the situation to give meaning to our actions. The evidence before us is clearly that physics cannot and is not likely ever to offer an explanation for our origin and existence.

Stipulated; self-evident. However, irrelevant. What "We" may crave or otherwise want is immaterial to what "IS". Operative is that the need/want/craving to which you allude is purely subjective, an emotional construct, a matter of personal perception and preference.

Quote:

In these circumnstances a rational actor will clearly leve room for new information or understanding, but will also not necessarily opt for a suspension of belief, understanding and comprehension of his situation for the duration of the only life he will live. To blandly but one's trust in physics for a future explanation of existence is everey bit as much a leap of faith as is the belief in a creator.

Again , why should there be any necessity for any " ... future explanation of existence", why should there be any root explanation detectable, determinable, discernable, understood, by us for existence, period? Why "must" there be "meaning" to existence? How can any contention based thereon be rational?

0 Replies

Timber,
Thank you for engaging the question. I believe we agree on most points. The differences are centered here.

timberlandko wrote:

Again , why should there be any necessity for any " ... future explanation of existence", why should there be any root explanation detectable, determinable, discernable, understood, by us for existence, period? Why "must" there be "meaning" to existence? How can any contention based thereon be rational?

I agree that my desire for a coherent understanding is essentially subjective, and that one can (in principle) live his life merely aware of the unexplained question of origins. (or as is more often the case, just not thinking about it at all.) This viewpoint does indeed involve an element of choice on my part. For me not thinking about it is not a satisfactory option. Neither are trusting in the eventual emergence of a materialist 'explanation' from physics, or living my life in a detached contemplation of the two named possibilities and a third, which you noted, - no explanation at all. Perhaps my essential point here is that there is no knowable rational answer to the question, and all concrete choices are equally subjective. To me one appears much more ratuional than the others. Others may judge differently.

Science offers no light on this question. However much of the criticism of ID/creationism in schools comes from people and institutions who fail to note or acknowledge these central points, and thereby imply "scientific truths" that are neither scientific nor truths.

0 Replies

Who said anything about being rational?

There must be a meaning to existence because it is a necessity for human sanity.

0 Replies

georgeob1

Quote:

For me not thinking about it is not a satisfactory option. Neither are trusting in the eventual emergence of a materialist 'explanation' from physics, or living my life in a detached contemplation of the two named possibilities and a third, which you noted, - no explanation at all

. Thats not a particularly "engineering" based conclusion. Id think that, youd be interested in defining the unknowns and then developing a "model" for the options, a model that allows investigation. The problem I have with religion is that, when confronted with the questions of deep "anything" (time space order disorder etc) , those afflicted with religious P'sOV, immediately default to "he(or it ) who shall not be named".

You could indulge your need for a "satisfactory option" by employing science and inquiry, couldnt you?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Who said anything about being rational?

There must be a meaning to existence because it is a necessity for human sanity.

If we assume (for the sake of argument) you are correct that "There must be a meaning to existence because it is a necessity for human sanity" why does that presuppose the need to believe in the following in order to have meaning in one's life?

Alien abductions
Astral projection
Astrology
Flying carpets
Flying pigs
Ghosts
God
Levitation
Santa Claus
Talking horses
The Tooth Fairy
Witches
Wizards
Zombies

Are you truly willing to say that all the people that have no supernatural beliefs are not sane? I aver the opposite; those who believe in the supernatural do so for reasons that are not sane.

Sane: having or showing sound judgment; reasonable

0 Replies

georgeob1, I consider never having had the opportunity to serve with you a personal loss. IMO, you hadda have been one helluva skipper.

0 Replies

Apparently, George, you consider "engaging the question" to consist in accepting your petitio principi that theism fulfills a need which can be unquestionably asserted to reside in all humans. You wax nasty indeed when it is pointed out to you that this is not necessarily the case. There are those whom make no "leap of faith" on these questions because they are meaningless. I am completely confident that you will now allege this to be a deficient condition.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design is not creationism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know