Intelligence of Design

[Radrook]

Only if life has meaning can we ask for its meaning.
Life has meaning.
We can ask for its meaning..

You unravel that convoluted reasoning.
I can't.

 

[BillHoyt]

Only if life has meaning can we ask for its meaning.
Life has meaning.
We can ask for its meaning..

You unravel that convoluted reasoning.
I can't.

I am going to assume you are serious here. Your first premise is based on the false assumption that we cannot ask meaningless questions. You assume we are incapable of creating a concept without a reality. False.

Let's substitute X here:

"Only if X exists can we ask about X."

That is the general form of your assertion, refuted by this substitution:

"Only if left-handed framleich wrenches exist can we ask about
left-handed framleich wrenches."

Now, go find us left-handed framleich wrenches.

 

[Iacchus]

Bullocks on two counts. First, you proffered the argument that the things we see in the universe look designed and that, therefore, there must have been a designer. I have responded to you that, by this same argument, the designer must have a designer. You have been unable to address this except by dodging and deflection. You have the problem, not I.

So how does the zygote become a fully developed human being if it doesn't follow the plan which was laid out for it in its genes? Are you trying to tell me that has nothing to do with the design? The information is all encoded man.

Second, you are now shifting the argument to the old "something can't come from nothing argument." Let us set aside for the moment what the cosmologists might speculate as to the universe before the big bang and look squarely at the just-so-story of the universe springing from God. We have the same infinite regress here. From whence did God spring? Did not God also come from nothing?

Except you fail to realize that God is not natural but a spirit. In which case God is not of this physical Universe you wish to describe.

Both your arguments suffer from this same begging the question fallacy. They simply defer the problem, and refuse to deal with the same logic applied to your god answer.

Your arguments are severely flawed. They compel the conclusion that god gotta daddy.

Do you believe that Universe exists as a whole? If, in fact there's only one Universe, why does there have to be more than one God? One Universe. One God. Makes sense to me.

 

[BillHoyt]

So how does the zygote become a fully developed human being if it doesn't follow the plan which was laid out for it in its genes? Are you trying to tell me that has nothing to do with the design? The information is all encoded man.

Evasion, again. Address the question about the infinite regress your logic demands.

Except you fail to realize that God is not natural but a spirit. In which case God is not of this physical Universe you wish to describe.

The fallacy of special pleading. You asserted that something cannot come from nothing. I responded that you need to apply that logic to god, who sprang from nothing. Now you claim god is nothing material. But now you have a non-material thing giving rise to a material something. This refutes your original assertion that this was an impossibility.

Do you believe that Universe exists as a whole? If, in fact there's only one Universe, why does there have to be more than one God? One Universe. One God. Makes sense to me.

This is another deflection from the argument. You asserted the "design" in the universe implies there must be a designer. You conclude god. Now, apply that logic again, and god gotta daddy. Or do you wish to argue that your god is amorphous blob that has no appearance whatsoever of design? Careful here, you're backing yourself into more problems.

 

[Iacchus]

The problem here is that you've become couched in all your empirical observations which, is too bad for you.

 

[BillHoyt]

The problem here is that you've become couched in all your empirical observations which, is too bad for you.

Further evasion noted.

 

[Maledict]

The problem here is that you've become couched in all your empirical observations which, is too bad for you.

Oh, Empirical Observation has only lifted up humanity from it's recesses and further advanced it - Meh, Empirical Observation, who needs it when you can sit down and uselessly think that the world around you is the product of your imagination!

 

[Iacchus]

Oh, Empirical Observation has only lifted up humanity from it's recesses and further advanced it - Meh, Empirical Observation, who needs it when you can sit down and uselessly think that the world around you is the product of your imagination!

So, and whether it has done this or hasn't, maybe we should be giving God credit instead?

 

[Z]

Why credit God for the advancements of Man? HE didn't do the hard work of determining the reality of things - HE left us with a bunch of false mythic mumbo-jumbo, and WE figured the rest out all by ourselves.

Sorry - I'll credit God with pushing the START button, but after that, it's props to Science.

 

[Iacchus]

Regardless, I would suggest that it was all part of the plan. And, for any of us to assume otherwise is awfully arrogant I would think.

 

[Z]

No more or less so than assuming that God has a plan, or that you can detect the presence of God's plan.

Arrogance works in mysterious ways...

 

[The Cats Venm]

I think it would, however, be fair to give God credit for Iacchus's insanity.

He can't help it if God made him that way, and we shouldn't be so mean to him. He knows not what he says.


But science, that's all ours (humanity). If it weren't for science, humans would have no reedeeming qualities whatsoever. I wouldn't want to live in a world without science (and critical thinking, scepticism, and all the other things the scientific method has encouraged).

Then again, I suppose I wouldn't know what I was missing, ignorance being bliss and all that.

 

[Iacchus]

I think it would, however, be fair to give God credit for Iacchus's insanity.

It's all about self-justification isnt' it? And yet what is there to justify, without meaning to justify it with? In which case I ask, how can you justify what you're saying about me? By the way, I started this thread called, Why Call Me Stupid? in case you're interested. It should still be available on the board, otherwise I'll have to post the link you see. Of course that means you'll have to click on an additional page, but what the heck, maybe you should be required to work for it?

 

[Navigator]

Is nothing a scientific certainty which has been proven?

Is the concept of a beginning a certainty or an assumption?

Why is the Christian concept of 'God' used as the basis for argument against any God existing?

All of your religions teach the worship of a deity and a doctrine of human salvation. It is the underlying kinship of your planet's religions. However, I am not the deity that your worship falls upon, nor am I the creator of your doctrines of human salvation. Worship of me in coin or moral consideration is unnecessary.
First Source - My Central Revelation

You are the heirs of my light, which gave you form. It is my voice that awakened you to individuality, but it will be your will that awakens you to our unity.
First Source - My Central Message

Why is the thought of 'God" existing, so repulsive to some individuals?

My vastness makes me invisible and unavoidable. There is nowhere you can be without me. My absence does not exist. It is this very nature that makes me unique. I am First Cause and Last Effect connected in an undivided chain.
First Source - My Central Message

It is understandable that human god concepts in the light of the evolution of human intelligence and awareness become repulsive.
It is folly to assume from this that God does not exist.

All that is proven is that God is not how humans first thought/assumed God is.
Always presume innocence until evidence proves guilt.

God is bigger than any human individual can imagine.

I live for your discovery of me. It is the highest expression of my love for you, and while you search for my shadows in the stories of your world, I, the indelible, invisible light, grow increasingly visible. Imagine the furthest point in space -- beneath a black portal, cast in some distant galaxy, and then multiply this distance by the highest numeric value you know. Congratulations, you have measured an atom of my body.
First Source - My Central Message

While the 'Damn uppity hairless apes!' focus upon arguing 'the sub-facts' The Facts get on with being...undected by those distracted by the little nauances.

am not to be feared or held in indifference. My presence is immediate, tangible, and real. You are now in my presence. Hear my words. You are in my presence. You are within me more than I am within you. You are the veneer of my mind and heart, and yet you think yourself the product of an ape. You are so much more than you realize.
First Source - My Central Message

While the argument of 'what god is and isn't' is always aimed at something outside the concept and understanding of The Self, God remains undetectable.
And arguable.

Truly, this is my central revelation. I am here, beneath this mythology, to awaken your animal self to our relationship so you may slay your vanity. This is the distortion between us. It is not space or time that separates us and diminishes our conscious relationship. It is your desire to excel within the cave of your existence and derive gratification from this and this alone.
First Source - My Central Revelation

I will leave to others to define the psychological wisdom and common sense behaviors of success. My words penetrate elsewhere; to a place within you that is susceptible, innocent, faithful, and ever listening for a tonal hint of my presence. When it is found, this part of you -- like an instrument entrained by a powerful resonance -- will vibrate in accordance to my voice.
First Source - My Central Revelation

Is nothing a scientific certainty which has been proven?

Is the concept of a beginning a certainty or an assumption?

 

[Iacchus]

Eternity has always been.

 

[daenku32]

Since everything is a design, then there is no difference between non-design and design, making design a worthless word of no unique qualities.

 

[Iacchus]

Some designs are more base than others, but designs nonetheless.