Intelligent Design ...

[Iacchus]

I have been trying to find a logical conclusion to this statement. All I can come up with is that "it" is explainable and that "it" is material. I'm sure that there are other conclusions and I simply lack imagination but I don't get your conclusion.

The problem might be one of semantics. Could you give us an example of something that is not "wholly consistent with its nature" and is not explainable (aside from anything abstract)?

Please refer to Mojo's response ...

The universe seems "comprehensible and intelligible" because it seems to follow consistent and ordered rules, at least on the sort of scale on which we're accustomed to observing it. Order is necessary for life, as the systems of chemical reactions necessary for life as we know it are dependent on each individual reaction behaving predictably. If the universe didn't follow consistent rules, life would not have been able to evolve as these systems of reactions would not work reliably. Any life form capable of observing the universe would therefore have to be living in a universe with consistent rules.

I don't see how I can make it any more clear than this.

 

[Taffer]

I don't see how I can make it any more clear than this.

Do you even read the quotes you post? Mojo didn't say one word about anything in the universe that doesn't appear to follow the "laws of nature". Just what are you on about? Your hook is pitiful, ye lily-livered landlubber!

 

[c4ts]

So, why does the Universe seem so comprehensible and completely "intelligible?"

Because comprehensibility and intelligibility are external attributes and therefore do not imply comprehension or intelligence on the part of anything but the beholder.

 

[Taffer]

Just to answer the OP in another way:

So, why does the Universe seem so comprehensible and completely "intelligible?"

It does?

 

[Iacchus]

Because comprehensibility and intelligibility are external attributes and therefore do not imply comprehension or intelligence on the part of anything but the beholder.

Is that a fact?

 

[Mercutio]

Is that a fact?

actually, yes.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

lacchus

Why do you believe all your posts have to be questions? do you feel so unsecure about your own beliefs that all you can do is try to make us feel you are asking because you want us to think? how can anyone be that annoying? dont you even learn? do you honestly believe you are educating us? will you stop someday?

 

[Iacchus]

actually, yes.

Which is to say, none of it "really" makes sense? If so, then why do you spout it off as being "factual?"

 

[Iacchus]

lacchus

Why do you believe all your posts have to be questions? do you feel so unsecure about your own beliefs that all you can do is try to make us feel you are asking because you want us to think? how can anyone be that annoying? dont you even learn? do you honestly believe you are educating us? will you stop someday?

I am Socrates. Of course.

 

[Mercutio]

Which is to say, none of it "really" makes sense? If so, then why do you spout it off as being "factual?"

Iacchus, when you don't understand something, it is ok to say so. When you go off on a tangent like you do, you just look stupid.

 

[Iacchus]

Or, what if I were the reincarnation of Socrates? In which case there would be nothing to learn, except how to be myself.

 

[Taffer]

Which is to say, none of it "really" makes sense? If so, then why do you spout it off as being "factual?"

It isn't, and he didn't. It seems "comprehensible and intelligible". This is due to properties of matter in the universe. There seems no reason for this, so we can assume they are because they are. It does not mean the whole universe is, as we have not observed the whole universe, have we? It doesn't even mean the universe we have observed is "comprehensible and intelligible"; it could be a giant fluke. So what is the point of this thread or of your questions?

 

[Iacchus]

Do you honestly believe you are educating us?

How does one educate oneself, without asking questions? Or, is it just a matter of accepting everything you hear verbatim? If a question is posed, I am not the one to answer it, except perhaps for myself.

 

[Iacchus]

It isn't, and he didn't. It seems "comprehensible and intelligible". This is due to properties of matter in the universe. There seems no reason for this, so we can assume they are because they are. It does not mean the whole universe is, as we have not observed the whole universe, have we? It doesn't even mean the universe we have observed is "comprehensible and intelligible"; it could be a giant fluke. So what is the point of this thread or of your questions?

As I have said before, it is turtles all the way up, and turtles all the way down. Either the whole thing is a fluke or, none of it is a fluke. And let's not forget that it all came from the same place, correct?

 

[Mercutio]

As I have said before, it is turtles all the way up, and turtles all the way down. Either the whole thing is a fluke or, none of it is a fluke. And let's not forget that it all came from the same place, correct?

Just curious, Iacchus...do you actually know what "turtles all the way up, and turtles all the way down" means? I know I have used the phrase in critiquing things you have said, so there is the possibility that you are simply parroting the words without any understanding.

Could you explain to us, please, what you mean by "turtles all the way up, and turtles all the way down"?

 

[Donks]

How does one educate oneself, without asking questions?

Once you ask questions, you could try searching for the answers as well.

Or, is it just a matter of accepting everything you hear verbatim?

Is that a strawman I read? Why yes it is!

If a question is posed, I am not the one to answer it, except perhaps for myself.

It really helps to find out if someone else already answered the question. Otherwise you'll just be reinventing the wheel. Which , at your current pace, you should achieve in 10,000 years or so?

 

[Taffer]

As I have said before, it is turtles all the way up, and turtles all the way down. Either the whole thing is a fluke or, none of it is a fluke. And let's not forget that it all came from the same place, correct?

The point is, we can never know for certain if it truely is ordered. It appears ordered, but many things that appear one way are in actual fact another.

 

[Freakshow]

I believe that we are all here to learn. You don't agree with this assessment? [/i]

Actually, I don't agree with this assessment. Because reading your posts (not just this thread, but all the threads I've seen you on), it doesn't appear at all that you are here to learn anything. You are here to blather on endlessly, ending all your sentences with question marks (which does not automatically make you a user of the Socratic method, BTW), and try to twist and contort and fit everything so badly as to require a belief in the supernatural to make things work.

I've never seen you looking to learn anything here.

 

[Iacchus]

Actually, I don't agree with this assessment. Because reading your posts (not just this thread, but all the threads I've seen you on), it doesn't appear at all that you are here to learn anything. You are here to blather on endlessly, ending all your sentences with question marks ...

Not so. You should be careful when trying to lump things into terms of "everything." There, you see, two sentences without ending in a question mark ... Er, make that three.

... (which does not automatically make you a user of the Socratic method, BTW), and try to twist and contort and fit everything so badly as to require a belief in the supernatural to make things work.

Or, maybe there's no contortion to it at all? But then again, it's not for me to tell you what you should believe.

I've never seen you looking to learn anything here.

You're right, I have nothing to learn here -- or, very little anyway -- except how to refine my technique.

 

[c4ts]

Which is to say, none of it "really" makes sense? If so, then why do you spout it off as being "factual?"

Let me try this another way.

Iacchus, if I have a bit of string, and I say it is short, where do we find the shortness? Does it come from the string itself?