Intelligent Design ...

[Donks]

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

Wow, this right here speaks volumes. If your "book" wasn't enough to convince me a conversation with you was pointless, this is.

 

[Iacchus]

Wow, this right here speaks volumes. If your "book" wasn't enough to convince me a conversation with you was pointless, this is.

So, what does it take to get someone to change their mind? Even if the truth were presented to you on a silver platter, does that necessarily guarantee success? No.

 

[Donks]

So, what does it take to get someone to change their mind?

A willingness to do so in the presence of valid evidence or argumentation.

Even if the truth were presented to you on a silver platter, does that necessarily guarantee success? No.

Nobody said it did. Starting from the premise that you have nothing to learn will not help.

 

[Iacchus]

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?

It exists out of the relationship between you and the string. So, unless you have a piece of string, you couldn't even begin to assess its length.

 

[Iacchus]

A willingness to do so in the presence of valid evidence or argumentation.

Nobody said it did. Starting from the premise that you have nothing to learn will not help.

No, I never said I had nothing to learn. I said I had very little to learn here ... except to refine my own technique of course.

 

[Donks]

No, I never said I had nothing to learn. I said I had very little to learn here ... except to refine my own technique of course.

Okay then. Good luck refining your technique, whatever that means. And when your techique is as refined as it gets, let's see how much luck you have in applying it.

 

[Mojo]

How so? I'm just saying that through and through, it should remain consistent with itself. Isn't this in effect what you were saying?

Sorry, I thought your "turtles all the way down" comment was a reference to the quotation often attributed to Bertrand Russell. And, of course, it may not be nearly as consistent and ordered as you appear to believe.

So, we have meaning for just about everything else (in reference to the original post), except for the origin of meaning. Very interesting ... indeed. So, does this mean that everything we think, say and do is totally unfounded?

No, we have a universe in which things appear to follow consistent rules. There is not necessarily any meaning to it. The fact that we can figure out how objects behave does not necessarily mean that their behaviour has "meaning." If I pick up th toy that the cat has left on the floor here, and drop it, it falls back to the floor. This does not have any meaning.

 

[Iacchus]

Sorry, I thought your "turtles all the way down" comment was a reference to the quotation often attributed to Bertrand Russell. And, of course, it may not be nearly as consistent and ordered as you appear to believe.

And which quote is that? It may help to shed some light on some of the things which have been said (about turtles) on this forum.

No, we have a universe in which things appear to follow consistent rules. There is not necessarily any meaning to it. The fact that we can figure out how objects behave does not necessarily mean that their behaviour has "meaning." If I pick up th toy that the cat has left on the floor here, and drop it, it falls back to the floor. This does not have any meaning.

If you have two things, and a relationship that exists between two things, this is where you will find meaning. In which case the Universe is chock full of meaning.

 

[Mojo]

And which quote is that? It may help to shed some light on some of the things which have been said (about turtles) on this forum.

This one.

The "turtles all the way down" problem is obviously a great difficulty for the theory of intelligent design as proposed by Dembsky, Behe et al. If, as they claim, complexity cannot spontaneously arise, but must be designed, then the "designer" must necessarily be more complex than what they have designed. Therefore the designer must have been designed by another still more complex designer, and so on.

If you have two things, and a relationship that exists between two things, this is where you will find meaning. In which case the Universe is chock full of meaning.

I don't think we're using the same definition of "meaning."

 

[Mercutio]

And which quote is that? It may help to shed some light on some of the things which have been said (about turtles) on this forum.

Ah, so you were using the phrase without understanding what it meant.

 

[Iacchus]

This one.

The "turtles all the way down" problem is obviously a great difficulty for the theory of intelligent design as proposed by Dembsky, Behe et al. If, as they claim, complexity cannot spontaneously arise, but must be designed, then the "designer" must necessarily be more complex than what they have designed. Therefore the designer must have been designed by another still more complex designer, and so on.

I agree, the complexity must already be bound up inside the Creator. Aside from that though, how many times should the "whole of all" exist? So in that sense I only see "one turtle."

I don't think we're using the same definition of "meaning."

And what does it "mean" to you, outside of the bearing it has on "your" position? This in effect is saying the same thing.

 

[Taffer]

If you have two things, and a relationship that exists between two things, this is where you will find meaning. In which case the Universe is chock full of meaning.

In the dying minutes of TLAP day, I will try to attempt to answer this pointless statement in Pirate form.

*ahem*


Arr, you landlubber! You understand less 'n a deck swabbie fresh from the docks! Th' universe has a meanin' to us. This no more s'gests th' universe has a meanin' behind it then it s'gests that you're more 'n a lilly-livered land-lubber! Shiver me timbers, lad, don't you think anything through?

 

[Iacchus]

Ah, so you were using the phrase without understanding what it meant.

Is this where the phrase originated or, was it drawn from some other (perhaps ancient) source? As I understand, it has something to do with the principle of infinite regression.

 

[Mojo]

I agree, the complexity must already be bound up inside the Creator.

How did the creator (and its "bound up" complexity) originate? If you are stating that complexity can exist without having been designed, then IDers central objection to evolution by natural selection hes been demolished.

Aside from that though, how many times should the "whole of all" exist? So in that sense I only see "one turtle."

But what is it standing on?

And what does it "mean" to you, outside of the bearing it has on "your" position? This in effect is saying the same thing.

Taffer has already answered this point perfectly adequately.

 

[Iacchus]

Arr, you landlubber! You understand less 'n a deck swabbie fresh from the docks! Th' universe has a meanin' to us. This no more s'gests th' universe has a meanin' behind it then it s'gests that you're more 'n a lilly-livered land-lubber! Shiver me timbers, lad, don't you think anything through?

By virtue of the fact that something exists, it has meaning.

 

[Taffer]

By virtue of the fact that something exists, it has meaning.

Bollocks. Prove it.

 

[Mercutio]

By virtue of the fact that something exists, it has meaning.

Ok, so you are redefining meaning. Fair enough. Could you please let us know when you are going to do this? Or perhaps it would be easier if you simply let us know on those rare occasions when you use a word in the same way the rest of the language community does.

 

[Iacchus]

How did the creator (and its "bound up" complexity) originate? If you are stating that complexity can exist without having been designed, then IDers central objection to evolution by natural selection hes been demolished. But what is it standing on?

There is nothing more complex than what is bound up in a mind. And a mind does not have to stand upon anything to exist ... I think.

 

[Taffer]

I think.

There there ya go.

 

[Iacchus]

Bollocks. Prove it.

And what do you mean by demanding proof? That I should "validate" its meaning to you? The proof is in the fact that you require validation.