Intelligent Design

[Taffer]

As if there were no "set laws" which brought about the Big Bang first place? Please ...

I'm sure there were, but they are simply impossible for us to ever, ever, know.

 

[Taffer]

If you're saying the line cannot be drawn, then you're saying it's either all consciousness or it's not. And, since all that we know is obtained through consciousness, then I would opt to say it was all consciousness.

False Dichotomy.

 

[Taffer]

There weren't. Pure chaos and random fluctuations eventually produced our universe. In fact, there probably are a great number (read: infinity) of other universes each with their own physical laws. If so, most of them probably wouldn't make any sort of (physical) sense to us. Look it up.

To what laws would you be referring to, in any case ?

Or this too, Iacchus. Anything is possible before the Big Bang, but we can never know its nature.

 

[Taffer]

Hey jackass, let's not forget who just got through calling me "close-minded." Okay?

We call you close-minded, Iacchus, only after you have shown much evidence which supports our hypothesis.

 

[Taffer]

I didn't mention humans. I just said that machines are (most probably) not sentient. Yet they receive information, which Iacchus says means they are sentient.

My bad.

 

[Iacchus]

It is beginning to seem to me that Iaachus is a monist, not a dualist, but his monism is a level above both mind and body and sources both.

Well, yes, except that I would say both are separate and distinct realms ... or, that the mind leads into this other or, spiritual dimension which, rules above all.

 

[Taffer]

Well, yes, except that I would say both are separate and distinct realms ... or, that the mind leads into this other or, spiritual dimension, which rules above all.

And yet you still have no evidence that this is true. Silly Iacchus.

 

[hammegk]

How is it a materialist axiom?

"There exists a physical, objective, rule-based reality" is a materialist statement imo. Suggest otherwise if you can.

And interaction does not imply consciousness.

It would depend on how you view awareness with respect to other awarenesses, that is "existents", and the ability to interact in a way that is not absolutely pre-determined.

 

[Iacchus]

We call you close-minded, Iacchus, only after you have shown much evidence which supports our hypothesis.

Hey, did you know that Jesus rode into town on a jackass? Maybe He's riding in on your backs too!

 

[Taffer]

"There exists a physical, objective, rule-based reality" is a materialist statement imo. Suggest otherwise if you can.

Yes, but this is a totally different statement to what you had listed as a materialist axiom.

It would depend on how you view awareness with respect to other awarenesses, that is "existents", and the ability to interact in a way that is not absolutely pre-determined.

Well, since I do not believe in free will, this statement is meaningless.

 

[Taffer]

Hey, did you know that Jesus rode into town on a jackass? Maybe He's riding in on your backs too!

Which is to say you're right, I really don't have any evidence or logical proof for my inane statements, so I will continue to make baseless assertions and personal attacks instead.

 

[Iacchus]

Or this too, Iacchus. Anything is possible before the Big Bang, but we can never know its nature.

Only if we could never know God ...

Yet by virtue of the fact that we exist, and know that we exist, He has manifested Himself before us in everything that we think, say and do.

 

[Iacchus]

Which is to say you're right, I really don't have any evidence or logical proof for my inane statements, so I will continue to make baseless assertions and personal attacks instead.

Yes, and you do to your own detriment.

 

[Taffer]

Only if we could never know God ...

Yet by virtue of the fact that we exist, and know that we exist, He has manifested Himself before us in everything that we think, say and do.

How do you come to conclusions like this? Do you actually have any evidence for your claims?

 

[Taffer]

Yes, and you do to your own detriment.

Um...what? Where have I done this?

 

[Iacchus]

No. Everything does not "vibrate".

Yes, in fact I believe it does, at the atomic or, sub-atomic level.

 

[hammegk]

Yes, but this is a totally different statement to what you had listed as a materialist axiom.

Please explain why you do not find the same meanings and implications in both.

Well, since I do not believe in free will, this statement is meaningless.

That is your choice. Free will is the ultimate problem for materialists, and, may I add, for all existents.

 

[Taffer]

Yes, in fact I believe it does, at the atomic or, sub-atomic level.

You have some evidence for this, I suppose?

 

[Iacchus]

Argument from Incredulity do not help your argument, Iacchus. If this is how the universe is, could we tell? How do we know that the universe existed a second ago?

Through my ability to access the image of it in the present.

 

[Taffer]

Please explain why you do not find the same meanings and implications in both.

"Not all things are conscious" is the materialist axiom.

How does "not all things are conscious" equate to "a physical reality"?

That is your choice. Free will is the ultimate problem for materialists, and, may I add, for all existents.

It is a problem only if free will exist. I, personally, have no problem with there being no free will. If you do, I question your objectivity in this.