Intelligent Design

[Mercutio]

Pheeew! Did somebody just piss on the fire? All I can see is smoke, and it really stinks!

Again, I have to remind myself...you are actually older than I am.

 

[Iacchus]

Congratulations, Taffer--you got the closest thing so far to a straight answer from Iacchus.

Yeah, but will he respect me in the morning?

 

[Taffer]

Oh, did you happen to read the little exchange between Belz and myself? ...




Well, I suppose it's possible that he didn't really mean what he said here?

Do you think he'd be willing to retract it?

Well, since I am not he, how should I know? All I know is that, without getting into things like space/time, we cannot know anything before the big bang. I suspect Belz... was getting into space/time, in that before the big bang, there was no space/time in which a cause could happen. I also suspect you simply don't understand him, or I.

 

[Taffer]

And, if it is possible for one person to know, how does it become pointless?

How can you know, without any evidence? Do you have any evidence for anything you say?

 

[Taffer]

If I was sentient, and able to maintain the notion that I had a past, as if I had genuinely experienced it, I would say no. Of course this also lends itself to the notion of a holographic Universe which, is set up on somebody's harddrive somewhere. And, is really not altogether different from what I'm suggesting, except that I acknowledge the passage of time. Either way though, as you seem to suggest, we probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

So, just so I do not misunderstand you, you are saying that you could not tell the difference, correct?

 

[Taffer]

Congratulations, Taffer--you got the closest thing so far to a straight answer from Iacchus.

I am just as shocked as you, Mercutio.

 

[Belz...]

If I was sentient, and able to maintain the notion that I had a past, as if I had genuinely experienced it, I would say no. Of course this also lends itself to the notion of a holographic Universe which, is set up on somebody's harddrive somewhere. And, is really not altogether different from what I'm suggesting, except that I acknowledge the passage of time. Either way though, as you seem to suggest, we probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

He... he... he ANSWERED!!!

 

[Belz...]

Well, since I am not he, how should I know? All I know is that, without getting into things like space/time, we cannot know anything before the big bang. I suspect Belz... was getting into space/time, in that before the big bang, there was no space/time in which a cause could happen.

Indeed. We can't know what happened before the big bang because there was no BEFORE the big bang.

 

[Taffer]

Indeed. We can't know what happened before the big bang because there was no BEFORE the big bang.

I thought you were. It is a bit of an interesting thing, ol' space/time.

 

[kmortis]

Actually, I don't recall having said (in so many words) that the material world was wholly contingent upon the spiritual world. And yes, I did answer your question, to the extent that no such thing would exist. Albeit I did bring up the notion that consciousness was a "base property" but, it sounded to me (according to the nature of your question) like you didn't understand what that fully entailed.

Actually, there would be no Universe to speak of, since the material Universe is a subset of the spiritual. And, whether we're aware of it in this life or not is immaterial. It's not going to change the fact that the spiritual world is there.

Does THAT refresh your memory? Would you like to explain how something that you claim to be a subset of the "spiritual universe" ISN'T contingant on it?

No, I have no intention of having you folks continue to address me as if I were speaking out of my arse.

Have you noticed a pattern yet? We only talk to people like they were walking out of their arses, when they have shown a consistant and determined decision to talk out their arses. So, if you want us to stop talking to you like that, stop speaking out of yer arse.

Well, obviously I'm not here because I agree with anyone. But then again, this is a skeptic's site is it not? So, why are you here? Is it because of all the religion bashing going on? Just a wild guess.

No, the religion bashing comes about when people like you give us soft-headed ideas that they then refuse to back-up. Virgin birth...ha ha; the world is an illusion...ho ho; the way that can be described is not the way..ha ha, ho ho, Bubba. The later part of this thread has been spent trying to get you to give one, just one, piece of evidence to ANY of your assertations.

Yes, it's a skeptic site, ya know what that means? It means we won't believe you just cause yer a gamned nice guy (and, I don't know, it's possible that you and I could sit down and have a beer together enjoyably), but because you can back up your ideas with facts. Not innunendo; not dreams; not "cause I said so"; not any of that crap.

So, again, I ask you to whip out that purple crayon and start scribbling.

 

[Iacchus]

Does THAT refresh your memory? Would you like to explain how something that you claim to be a subset of the "spiritual universe" ISN'T contingant on it?

And you do realize of course that the first post was merely an affirmaton of what I said in the second don't you? So, you may wish to go back and re-read them.

So, again, I ask you to whip out that purple crayon and start scribbling.

And, while I'm not beyond the notion of collaboration, regarding my book, this forum is not the place to so.

 

[hammegk]

How is it mediated by electromagnetic radiation?

Photons are the bosons that are the glue for all we perceive.

Which assumptions would those be, then?

Each person, if interested, will need to answer that question for themselves.

It is beyond our ken to know which is the case, is it not?

Not in the sense that logic is available even where empiricism can provide no answer.

 

[Mercutio]

Not in the sense that logic is available even where empiricism can provide no answer.

I would be very interested in hearing the logic behind your choice, then. I can see no way that, starting from the same observations, with assumption of one monism or the other, we can logically prove or disprove either. If I though we could, I would (as a pragmatist) have to side with that one.

eta: that would probably be another thread. I know this one seems hopelessly derailed at this point, but this would be another topic entirely.

 

[kmortis]

And you do realize of course that the first post was merely an affirmaton of what I said in the second don't you? So, you may wish to go back and re-read them.

No, you clearly stated in the first post that tha material universe is a subset of the spiritual. You then stated that that material universe isn't contingant on the spiritual. These two statments conflict.

And, while I'm not beyond the notion of collaboration, regarding my book, this forum is not the place to so.

That's nice, if you have salient passages already written, feel free to post them, as I'm sure you can obtain the copyright form the author. ;P

 

[kmortis]

Or "illusory", perhaps. But frankly, whether the material world is an illusion or sentience is, is (forgive me) immaterial. It is beyond our ken to know which is the case, is it not?

It's defianly beyond THIS Ken.....

 

[alfaniner]

Indeed. We can't know what happened before the big bang because there was no BEFORE the big bang.

Maybe it was this... (click for full-sized image)

 

[hammegk]

... I can see no way that, starting from the same observations, with assumption of one monism or the other, we can logically prove or disprove either.

Agreed. The best one can do is have faith that his choice, based on the facts he has available, and logic, is the correct one -- or be a dualist/agnostic -- as I was when I began participating here.

At the extremes, one will conclude different things. Life vs Non-life is one of the extremes, HPC another, and some of The Theory (neo-Ev) provides useful ground to til.

 

[Taffer]

Photons are the bosons that are the glue for all we perceive.

Please explain how Photons are glue. Do you, perhaps, mean gluons?

Each person, if interested, will need to answer that question for themselves.

But I asked you what you think.

Not in the sense that logic is available even where empiricism can provide no answer.

How can you reach a logical conclusion about that which happened before space/time, of which logic is a part?

 

[Taffer]

Agreed. The best one can do is have faith that his choice, based on the facts he has available, and logic, is the correct one -- or be a dualist/agnostic -- as I was when I began participating here.

At the extremes, one will conclude different things. Life vs Non-life is one of the extremes, HPC another, and some of The Theory (neo-Ev) provides useful ground to til.

Why do you insist on calling the theory of evolution "The Theory", and "Neo-Evolution"? Why the capitals, and why the "Neo-"?

 

[Iacchus]

No, you clearly stated in the first post that tha material universe is a subset of the spiritual. You then stated that that material universe isn't contingant on the spiritual. These two statments conflict.

No, I was only saying that I don't recall having said the material world was contingent upon the spiritual world, yet. That in fact I had put it this way, to reiterate that it was ... i.e., contingent.