So, what is Intelligent Design?
- Thread starter Iacchus
- Start date
-
- Tags
- design intelligent
Iacchus said:
I got as far as reading about the incidences of the doves....but I'm afraid that my foggy brain (I have fibromyalgia...gives you brain fog!) could not read anymore.
Some of your early childhood story is very sad. How awful for you to have endured such tough things. There's a lot you write about that I just don't understand. I hope you got far away from that Roy fellow...he sounds like he was from some very legalistic cult......unless I misunderstood what you were saying.
I used to think I heard, felt, and saw things as a Christian. In the end, most of these things did more harm than good...although, in some cases, it took years before the damage showed, or before I realized my huge mistake in following a particular "sign" or "wonder". There were certainly a few times that certain "signs" played out well.....but considering the "signs and wonders" that were so wrong were in the majority, it's not impressive to mention the few hits.....and they were really very few.
The mind can play so many tricks...especially when you are suggestible and looking for it. However, I am not saying you imagined doves. Doves are lovely and can be unafraid at times to come close. I've had some come close to me before. I can imagine your awe.
When I have time.....and it's not so late, I will read more on your site. I am not sure I have reached the main thrust of your story.
Hey, that's your 1,260th post ... That's good! ... It means we have a witness!Ruby said:
I got as far as reading about the incidences of the doves....but I'm afraid that my foggy brain (I have fibromyalgia...gives you brain fog!) could not read anymore.
Some of your early childhood story is very sad. How awful for you to have endured such tough things. There's a lot you write about that I just don't understand. I hope you got far away from that Roy fellow...he sounds like he was from some very legalistic cult......unless I misunderstood what you were saying.
I used to think I heard, felt, and saw things as a Christian. In the end, most of these things did more harm than good...although, in some cases, it took years before the damage showed, or before I realized my huge mistake in following a particular "sign" or "wonder". There were certainly a few times that certain "signs" played out well.....but considering the "signs and wonders" that were so wrong were in the majority, it's not impressive to mention the few hits.....and they were really very few.
The mind can play so many tricks...especially when you are suggestible and looking for it. However, I am not saying you imagined doves. Doves are lovely and can be unafraid at times to come close. I've had some come close to me before. I can imagine your awe.
When I have time.....and it's not so late, I will read more on your site. I am not sure I have reached the main thrust of your story.
Will try and respond to your reply later, but it's getting late and I have to go to bed.
RussDill
Philosopher
Iacchus said:
this is the type of stuff you get if you google remote viewing nova:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/activities/2012_psychics.html
Dorian Gray
Hypocrisy Detector
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2002
- Messages
- 20,366
Is there a name for the fallacious argument "God exists. Just look all around you. If you can't see it, it's because you have a closed mind, etc."? Seems like 'no true Scotsman' a little, but there's something else in there too.
Also, I would like to say that Remote Viewing is live Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. You don't know if the RV-er is right until someone actually goes there and looks. I would say that 99% of all correct RVs are just people who have good memories and attention to detail. But then, 80% of statistics are made up anyway.
Also, I would like to say that Remote Viewing is live Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. You don't know if the RV-er is right until someone actually goes there and looks. I would say that 99% of all correct RVs are just people who have good memories and attention to detail. But then, 80% of statistics are made up anyway.
CWL
Funkateer
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,401
As Iacchus kindly invited my to repost the below in this thread (which was originally posted here) I am now posting away:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Iacchus
And which reason would "you" prefer? It would seem I've given you plenty of reasons already.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to see some empirical evidence. I would like to see a theory on the basis of which it is possible to make accurate predictions. So far you have given me nothing of the sort.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It takes intelligence to know intelligence for one thing. Or, at the very least the fact that we are conscious and are capable of knowing such things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First off, there are many forms of "intelligence". Again, you need to define what you mean by "intelligence". However, even if you do define it, the mere circumstance that our species has evolved a particular brand of "intelligence" does nothing for your case.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think we can be reasonably certain, by virtue of our capacity to think and reason things out, that we are the most intelligent species of "the known" universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, depends on what you mean when you say "intelligence".
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We "are" the evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, we are not. On the contrary we "are" evidence of the theory of evolution. There have been many examples of this pointed out to you in this thread.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you mean in the sense that day follows night? And, that a circle represents unity and the completion of things?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No I mean "circular" in the sense that your conclusion is a premise for your arguments. Look:
Question: How do you know there is a God (a supreme intelligence)
Answer: Because we are intelligent and God obviously made us in his image (we are a reflection of God).
Can you not see why the above is blatantly fallacious? You do not provide any evicence, you simply presume (without any reason) that God exists.
Let's try it in the form of a simple syllogism (always popular on this forum):
1) Only an intelligent God would make intelligent beings
2) We are intelligent
3) Therefore there is a God
In order for the conclusion 3) to be true, both 1) and 2) have to be true. We know that 2) is, but we know nothing of 1). We know that there are intelligent beings (namely ourselves), but in order for us to know 1) to be true we would have to know with certainty that (a) there is a God and (b) that there is no other possible means for intelligent beingst to evolve - i.e. the very matters which you are trying to prove by your reasoning.
Maybe it becomes clearer to you now why this reasoning is fallacious? It's circular. Not valid reasoning. Proves nothing. See?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, in fact all I do see is stars. And what could that possibly mean, aside from the fact that the sun is the center of "our" existence?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tricky has already adressed this one above, illustrating the point I was trying to make. With your own reasoning: many suns = many gods. (Not that I understand what the heck suns have to do with gods.)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you see, this could construed as evidence if one were really up to it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No I don't see, and it couldn't nomatter how much one is up to, for or against it.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said it takes intelligence to acknowledge intelligence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are fitting facts to the theory my friend.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Iacchus
And which reason would "you" prefer? It would seem I've given you plenty of reasons already.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to see some empirical evidence. I would like to see a theory on the basis of which it is possible to make accurate predictions. So far you have given me nothing of the sort.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It takes intelligence to know intelligence for one thing. Or, at the very least the fact that we are conscious and are capable of knowing such things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First off, there are many forms of "intelligence". Again, you need to define what you mean by "intelligence". However, even if you do define it, the mere circumstance that our species has evolved a particular brand of "intelligence" does nothing for your case.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think we can be reasonably certain, by virtue of our capacity to think and reason things out, that we are the most intelligent species of "the known" universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, depends on what you mean when you say "intelligence".
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We "are" the evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, we are not. On the contrary we "are" evidence of the theory of evolution. There have been many examples of this pointed out to you in this thread.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you mean in the sense that day follows night? And, that a circle represents unity and the completion of things?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No I mean "circular" in the sense that your conclusion is a premise for your arguments. Look:
Question: How do you know there is a God (a supreme intelligence)
Answer: Because we are intelligent and God obviously made us in his image (we are a reflection of God).
Can you not see why the above is blatantly fallacious? You do not provide any evicence, you simply presume (without any reason) that God exists.
Let's try it in the form of a simple syllogism (always popular on this forum):
1) Only an intelligent God would make intelligent beings
2) We are intelligent
3) Therefore there is a God
In order for the conclusion 3) to be true, both 1) and 2) have to be true. We know that 2) is, but we know nothing of 1). We know that there are intelligent beings (namely ourselves), but in order for us to know 1) to be true we would have to know with certainty that (a) there is a God and (b) that there is no other possible means for intelligent beingst to evolve - i.e. the very matters which you are trying to prove by your reasoning.
Maybe it becomes clearer to you now why this reasoning is fallacious? It's circular. Not valid reasoning. Proves nothing. See?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, in fact all I do see is stars. And what could that possibly mean, aside from the fact that the sun is the center of "our" existence?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tricky has already adressed this one above, illustrating the point I was trying to make. With your own reasoning: many suns = many gods. (Not that I understand what the heck suns have to do with gods.)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you see, this could construed as evidence if one were really up to it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No I don't see, and it couldn't nomatter how much one is up to, for or against it.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said it takes intelligence to acknowledge intelligence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are fitting facts to the theory my friend.
RussDill
Philosopher
Iacchus said:
Yes Iacchus, it is all a massive CIA conspiracy.
RussDill
Philosopher
Iacchus said:
You are right, if they would fly remote control planes into office buildings at the order of the isreali government, who knows, they could have hacked into the nova website, removed the information, and then killed everyone who made the show, as well as their family. Then, they would have used their mind control technology to make everyone forget the show ever happened.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tautological Creationism
Yes, as Ogden Nash said:
A one-l Lama, that's a priest
A two-l Llama, that's a beast.
And you can bet your silk pajama
I don't want to see a three-l Lama.
----
There are always more invisible pink unicorns lurking about, yes. But until one of them interacts with matter, they're a bit hard to verify.
T'ai Chi said:
Yes, as Ogden Nash said:
A one-l Lama, that's a priest
A two-l Llama, that's a beast.
And you can bet your silk pajama
I don't want to see a three-l Lama.
----
There are always more invisible pink unicorns lurking about, yes. But until one of them interacts with matter, they're a bit hard to verify.
No, the problem is basically a male versus female thing -- i.e., rational versus emotional -- and what we need to do is learn how to reconcile our differences between science and religion ... If, in fact we would like to do anything to save this planet.Zero said:
