Intelligent Design

[Belz...]

Whether he is able to assess what I say is true or not, does not make me ignorant or, a liar. So, he must in fact have proof to the contrary of what I'm saying.

None of this follows from your premise.

This is no doubt your claim, and it's the kind of double-speak one goes up against when confronting the establishment. Remember this ... I am David; you are Goliath.

Hulk SMASH!

 

[Belz...]

Which, is why I'm asking whether he is willing to assert it one way or the other, otherwise he shouldn't be claiming that I don't know what I'm talking about? What, are you that dense or, is it pathological?

I make no claim, here. I merely state that your claim is nonsensical.

While it is quite possible that, due to the fact that everyone is wearing their "scientific blinders," they may be suffering from a lack of peripheral vision. But, since our "master of reality," Science, tells us to do so, we insist on wearing them.

Science tells us nothing of the sort. Quite the opposite, in fact.

And all it takes is one well placed pebble. Perhaps Goliath wasn't even aware of what hit him?

It takes much more than that to prove or disprove a scientific theory, my friend. And you don't have what it takes.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, but it doesn't require that I get "comfortable" with anyone in order to back me up.

I find religious, spiritual or otherwise paranormal beliefs to be quite comfortable indeed. This is why I don't trust them. Again, do you think I WANT to dissapear when I die ? You think I wouldn't want to live forever ? What I want is irrelevant. And so is what you want. Let's just get back to the evidence, shall we ?

 

[Belz...]

It is not "I" who guides my hand.

Prove it.

 

[Iacchus]

I never said such a thing here. You said that, because the universe is consistent, there is a designer. I said that that's a huge leap. I never said that there is NO designer.

Well, it is important that we make ourselves clear here.

I said that consistency is no argument in favor of one.

Sure it is.

 

[Iacchus]

I find this statement ridiculous. A conscious designer couldn't design inanimate, non-conscious objects ? I think he could create a universe without any form of consciousness whatsoever.

Yet there is a heaven and hell, and we enter it through this very portal we call consciousness.

 

[Mojo]

Yet there is a heaven and hell, and we enter it through this very portal we call consciousness.

Do you have any argument or evidence to support any of the assertions in ths sentence?

 

[Iacchus]

Do you have any argument or evidence to support any of the assertions in ths sentence?

Actually, what I'm trying to assert, is that everything, both material and spiritual, are tied together via consciousness. That in fact, consciousness is the fundamental element of the Universe.

 

[Mercutio]

Well, it is important that we make ourselves clear here.

He was quite clear, as evidenced by the fact that the only one here who did not understand him was you.

Sure it is.

Oh, good, we are back on track. Please explain how consistency is an argument in favor of design. Could a designer plan things so that they look to us to be inconsistent? (I don't see why not) Could a designer plan things so that they appear to us to be consistent? (again, sure, why not?) Would a designer have to be consistent by human standards? (I don't think so, even if it were a human designer!)

So tell us, Iacchus, why is it that consistency argues in favor of design? Consistency of a sort does follow from natural selection; common descent means that we build on what we already have. Cellular metabolism, for instance, can be studied in virtually any organism. Nerve signals, so terribly important to us and our "consciousness", have been studied in squid neurons (bigger than ours and easier to study, yet the electrochemical process is the same). If a designer had a hand in it, it could look the same, or it could be that each organism had its own seperately designed system. Why is it that you look at the evidence and see a designer? What logical steps do you follow from "consistency" to "designer"? Indeed, what logical steps does any intelligent design advocate follow?

 

[Iacchus]

He was quite clear, as evidenced by the fact that the only one here who did not understand him was you.

Oh, I understood him quite clearly, I just didn't particularly care for what he had to say.

Oh, good, we are back on track. Please explain how consistency is an argument in favor of design. Could a designer plan things so that they look to us to be inconsistent? (I don't see why not) Could a designer plan things so that they appear to us to be consistent? (again, sure, why not?) Would a designer have to be consistent by human standards? (I don't think so, even if it were a human designer!)

The only inconsistency that "seems" to exist, is a result of a whole variety of things which "are" consistent. Or, weren't you even remotely aware of that?

Yes, a diversity of consistent variables, contigent upon law upon law that is, produces the illusion that things "might" be inconsistent.

So tell us, Iacchus, why is it that consistency argues in favor of design?

Does GM consistently produce motor vehicles? How could they even attempt to do this, without any reference to design?

Consistency of a sort does follow from natural selection; common descent means that we build on what we already have.

Which is to say, there is nothing really "new" in other words.

Cellular metabolism, for instance, can be studied in virtually any organism.

Yes, isn't it a wonder that "any" of it can be studied at all?

Nerve signals, so terribly important to us and our "consciousness", have been studied in squid neurons (bigger than ours and easier to study, yet the electrochemical process is the same). If a designer had a hand in it, it could look the same, or it could be that each organism had its own seperately designed system. Why is it that you look at the evidence and see a designer? What logical steps do you follow from "consistency" to "designer"? Indeed, what logical steps does any intelligent design advocate follow?

The fact that it all seems to follow a "predescribed" pattern is enough for me.

 

[Taffer]

Oh, I understood him quite clearly, I just didn't particularly care for what he had to say.

I think that was painfully clear.

The only inconsistency that "seems" to exist, is a result of a whole variety of things which "are" consistent. Or, weren't you even remotely aware of that?

Yes, a diversity of consistent variables, contigent upon law upon law that is, produces the illusion that things "might" be inconsistent.

Can someone please translate this? It makes no sense to me...

Does GM consistently produce motor vehicles? How could they even attempt to do this, without any reference to design?

False analogy. Just because one thing we know is designed is consistant, does not mean everything that is consistant is designed. Try again.

Which is to say, there is nothing really "new" in other words.

No, it doesn't say that. Try again.

Yes, isn't it a wonder that "any" of it can be studied at all?

No. If an organism can sense the outside environment, it can study it.

The fact that it all seems to follow a "predescribed" pattern is enough for me.

Which "predescribed" pattern is that?

 

[Belz...]

Well, it is important that we make ourselves clear here.

I couldn't agree more. And I would also add that reading other people's posts diagonally doesn't help, Iacchus.

Sure it is.

Really ? Would you care to elaborate ? Or do you contend that it's "self-evident" ?

 

[Belz...]

Actually, what I'm trying to assert, is that everything, both material and spiritual, are tied together via consciousness. That in fact, consciousness is the fundamental element of the Universe.

Asserting. I can assert a lot of things. I can assert that the universe was created when a gigantic, cosmic-sized brown chicken laid it like an egg. But I'd be the subject of ridicule (though the idea of a gigantic poultry-god doesn't seem more ridiculous to me than that of a man-god) unless I could show evidence to support it, something you're yet to do.

 

[Mercutio]

Oh, I understood him quite clearly, I just didn't particularly care for what he had to say.

Wow. How dishonest of you, then, to try to pin it on him.

The only inconsistency that "seems" to exist, is a result of a whole variety of things which "are" consistent. Or, weren't you even remotely aware of that?

Does not address the question. Whether or not something appears consistent or not, why does that logically imply a designer? This is the question before you, and which you have not addressed.

Yes, a diversity of consistent variables, contigent upon law upon law that is, produces the illusion that things "might" be inconsistent.

Again, assertion, does not address the question. See above.

Does GM consistently produce motor vehicles? How could they even attempt to do this, without any reference to design?

We have clear evidence that GM exists. We could recycle every single GM car on the roads, and the factory would still continue to exist. We do not infer designer status on GM from observation of their cars; the fact that they design their cars has sufficient evidence without such inference (employment of designers, existence of blueprints, CAD files, wind tunnels, etc., are independent evidence from the product itself). Do you have any evidence for a designer, apart from the allegedly designed product? No, you do not; your argument is purely circular.

Which is to say, there is nothing really "new" in other words.

Once again, paraphrasing is not your friend. If we build on a foundation, when we are done is there still only a foundation there?

Yes, isn't it a wonder that "any" of it can be studied at all?

No, it is just a lot of hard work. Lots of learning. Try it some time.

The fact that it all seems to follow a "predescribed" pattern is enough for me.

Ah, there's the rub. There is nothing "predescribed" about it. Predescription implies that you have a source, written before something (whether a species, a planet, a star, or a universe) came into being, describing what would eventually happen. You have nothing of the sort; indeed, nothing of the sort exists. What you have is your circular inference from consistency to design. Which is to say, you have nothing.

 

[Belz...]

Oh, I understood him quite clearly, I just didn't particularly care for what he had to say.

I heard that.

Does GM consistently produce motor vehicles? How could they even attempt to do this, without any reference to design?

That's such a worthless argument! You KNOW, in advance, that GM designs their cars. How can you possibly make a comparison, ? Let me put it in another way. If a lottery pick gives us the numbers 1,2,3,4,5 and 6, does that mean the draw was designed ? No ? But... it's consistent!!!

The fact that it all seems to follow a "predescribed" pattern is enough for me.

Of course it is! Close-minded people only accept the bits of information that fit within their predetermined paradigm.

 

[Mojo]

Actually, what I'm trying to assert, is that everything, both material and spiritual, are tied together via consciousness. That in fact, consciousness is the fundamental element of the Universe.

Again, do you have any evidence or reasoned argument supporting this?

I assume (in the context of this thread) that you are claiming that it's this "consciousness" that is responsible for the "design."

 

[Iacchus]

Asserting. I can assert a lot of things. I can assert that the universe was created when a gigantic, cosmic-sized brown chicken laid it like an egg. But I'd be the subject of ridicule (though the idea of a gigantic poultry-god doesn't seem more ridiculous to me than that of a man-god) unless I could show evidence to support it, something you're yet to do.

Yet we don't have chickens or, anything else in nature for that matter, telling us to worship anything. Why does religion seem so exclusive to human beings?

 

[Mercutio]

Yet we don't have chickens or, anything else in nature for that matter, telling us to worship anything. Why does religion seem so exclusive to human beings?

We developed language, which allowed us to invent god.

You might actually enjoy reading some books on comparative religion. I found it to be a fascinating course in college.

 

[DreadNiK]

*de-lurk*

How do you know the reason cats wash themselves incessantly isn't because they believe cleanliness is next to godliness? And that termite mounds aren't their version of churches?

Are you trying to argue that because it doesn't appear as if any creature other than humans have religion, there must be something in it?

 

[Iacchus]

Again, do you have any evidence or reasoned argument supporting this?

I assume (in the context of this thread) that you are claiming that it's this "consciousness" that is responsible for the "design."

Consciousness which, is the only thing we really have to perceive this world with, is really nothing more than a highly advanced form of recognition. And when you think about it, this is basically how everything else operates, via some form of recognition. Things don't just happen without their interaction with something else. There must be some "awareness factor" that exists between all things. So, consciousness is none other than the full realization of this awareness factor, at least in terms of our ability to understand "why" things happen.