So, what is Intelligent Design?

[RussDill]

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.

I reject such a over-generalization. Firstly, women are just as capable of thinking logically as men. Second, any man can understand and work with his emotions if he so desires.

 

[Iacchus]

I reject such a over-generalization. Firstly, women are just as capable of thinking logically as men. Second, any man can understand and work with his emotions if he so desires.

And so you're denying this sort of struggle doesn't exist between the sexes? LOL!

 

[CWL]

The Sound of Crickets

Brave Sir Iacchus ran away, bravely ran away away...

 

[Tricky]

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.

In my hometown, there was a bad fire. Three fire departments had to be called. It was a three-alarmer.

You owe me a silk pajamer.

 

[Iacchus]

The Sound of Crickets

Brave Sir Iacchus ran away, bravely ran away away...

Yeah, it would be great if I didn't have to go to work!

And when I get off that's no guarantee that I'll have time to respond either, especially to long drawn out posts. Perhaps this afternoon? ... We'll see.

 

[metropolis_part_one]

Chapter 4 involves the magazine I found (of erotic origin) which was delivered to my doorstep on the 14th day of the 14th month which, happened to be St. Valentine's Day. It was delivered by some young boys (i.e., cupid) who came upstairs and knocked on my door before running away. From this I derived the base fourteen numbering system, based upon the fourteen images of one woman in particular, and the fourteen women's names I associated with them.

4.01 / Gerarai the Fourteen: A numbering system based on the intuitive sense, and developed in accord with the woman's will, this further develops the elements of marriage. Beginning with the unusual events surrounding a magazine I found—of erotic nature—and the 14 images of Kari. Where to each picture I ascribed a name and number, which come together to form numbers and symbols, to express the different quality of things. Index 0401.

CRAZY!

CRAZY!

 

[CWL]

Yeah, it would be great if I didn't have to go to work!

How true, how true.

And when I get off that's no guarantee that I'll have time to respond either, especially to long drawn out posts. Perhaps this afternoon? ... We'll see.

Indeed.

 

[RussDill]

And so you're denying this sort of struggle doesn't exist between the sexes? LOL!

It is a struggle that exists between human beings. Women are traditionally more emotionally driven, it might be genetic, it might be environmental. However, that isn't the point, there are plenty of men who are more emotionally driven, and plenty of women who are more logically driven. (by driven, I mean reach conclusions)

I think you are a perfect example, even though you are a man, you reach most of your conclusions without logic. I'm sure I could find a female skepchick to argue with you. That would be the opposite struggle of which you describe.

 

[Beleth]

This is too good a train of thought not to board.

If you found an arrowhead, without knowing what arrowheads were, there is no emotion involved in you rationally concluding, based on the evidence and reasoning, that it was designed.

But what reason would you have to conclude this, whether emotionally or not? What would lead you to conclude that an arrowhead was designed but that, say, a cube of salt or a crystal of quartz, was not designed?

I know what would lead me to conclude this. Extraneous evidence. Just a bunch of arrowheads sprinkled willy-nilly across a field, or a continent, wouldn't do it. There are other bits of evidence that have been discovered that lead one to the conclusion that arrowheads were designed.

- Other chunks of flint that match up seamlessly with arrowheads.
- Tools that show signs of being used to flake off bits of flint.
- Arrow shafts and the binding cord used to tie the heads to the shafts.
- Verbal records of how to make arrowheads.

And so on.

It's all this other stuff that we know about arrowheads that we don't know about salt or quartz that lead us to conclude that arrowheads are designed. Without this evidence, there would be no reason to believe that arrowheads were designed.

And this is exactly the kind of evidence we don't have about the universe. We don't have evidence of the raw materials, or the tools, or the passed-down instructions (we have stories, but not instructions) of how to make a universe.

 

[Iacchus]

As Iacchus kindly invited my to repost the below in this thread (which was originally posted here) I am now posting away:


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.

It's much easier to make a prediction based upon the analytical process than the intuitive process, which isn't to say it's not possible to make predictions based upon intuition. In fact I would venture to say it's our intuition which spurs on our creative processes and allow us to create anything ... and only then can we analyze and "predict" the results. So, if you're shooting it down based upon it being intuitively based, then I would suggest you're shooting down the whole creative process itself -- even God.

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.

Again, depends on what you mean when you say "intelligence".

Look at our ability -- or, "inability" if you will -- to communicate.

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.

We are evidence of the fact that we're here. Now, however you wish to "construe" that evidence is another story.

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?

And yet your whole argument is based on something which hasn't been determined yet. Whereas if it has, what would be so circular about stating that which is commonly held to be true? Of course whether it can verified by the means you provide is another story which, I think is the whole problem here, because you're looking for verification outside of yourself, rather than within -- which, is the only way you can truly know for yourself.

It's either within you or it isn't. And if it is, then that becomes the "mirror" which reflects God on the outside.

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.)

But my point is that there's only one sun that affects us "directly."

No I don't see, and it couldn't nomatter how much one is up to, for or against it.

It's evidence of a constant which exists outside of the evolutionary "chain" on earth, and yet without it life wouldn't exist.

You are fitting facts to the theory my friend.

What makes you think it's just a theory? That's the whole point, because in order for me to present it to you in a way that you can understand, I have to present it in the form of an argument. But ultimately what are you going to accept? That which is based upon an argument or, the actual reality itself?

 

[Iacchus]

CRAZY!

CRAZY!

Crazy huh? No doubt ... to the uninitiated and the foolish.

 

[Iacchus]

Re: Re: Re: Tautological Creationism

Then, except as defined by ourselves, there is no God? That's what your reasoning follows directly to.

And yet in order for us to understand, without defining it directly, this is probably the best way to put it.

Whereas to the degree that we do understand, we could then begin to approach Him more directly.

 

[Ceinwyn]

So Iacchus is lifegazer, right?

"And Franko, being a virgin, gave up Genghis to become stupid. Once stupified, Genghis begat lifegazer, who put forth Iacchus, and the slow lifted up their heads and said it was yummy."

 

[RussDill]

It's much easier to make a prediction based upon the analytical process than the intuitive process, which isn't to say it's not possible to make predictions based upon intuition. In fact I would venture to say it's our intuition which spurs on our creative processes and allow us to create anything ... and only then can we analyze and "predict" the results. So, if you're shooting it down based upon it being intuitively based, then I would suggest you're shooting down the whole creative process itself -- even God.

Yes, but still, intuition alone can't show anything for sure. Just like educated guessing.

But my point is that there's only one sun that affects us "directly."

Actually no, evolution appears to go in bursts that relate to our periodic proximity to various radation sources.

 

[metropolis_part_one]

Crazy huh? No doubt ... to the uninitiated and the foolish.

What is the opinion of Pythagoras concerning wild fowl?

 

[BillyJoe]

Iacchus is a Post-Modernist Wiccan.

.....or something.

 

[CWL]

It's much easier to make a prediction based upon the analytical process than the intuitive process, which isn't to say it's not possible to make predictions based upon intuition. In fact I would venture to say it's our intuition which spurs on our creative processes and allow us to create anything ... and only then can we analyze and "predict" the results. So, if you're shooting it down based upon it being intuitively based, then I would suggest you're shooting down the whole creative process itself -- even God.

Before we take this any further, would you please explain "the intuitive process" as I have no idea what you mean by this.

Look at our ability -- or, "inability" if you will -- to communicate.

Communication presupposes a common language. That's why I insist on you defining and explaining the terms you use.

It also presupposes that we have a common understanding of what standards of evidence need to be satisfied in order for us to agree that we "know" something. I personally adhere to logic and the scientific method (conclusions drawn from empirical evidence on the basis of repeatabliity and testability). If you know of any other method of ascertaining "knowledge", please do share it with us.

We are evidence of the fact that we're here. Now, however you wish to "construe" that evidence is another story.

The mere fact that we're here says nothing about "how" or "why" we got here. Examining the human body however says quite a lot about "how" we got here - no fingerprints or any other tell-tale signs of any deities though...

And yet your whole argument is based on something which hasn't been determined yet. Whereas if it has, what would be so circular about stating that which is commonly held to be true? Of course whether it can verified by the means you provide is another story which, I think is the whole problem here, because you're looking for verification outside of yourself, rather than within -- which, is the only way you can truly know for yourself.

What do you mean by "my whole argument is based on something which hasn't been determined yet"? Please explain as I truly don't understand what you are getting at here.

It's either within you or it isn't. And if it is, then that becomes the "mirror" which reflects God on the outside.

The only remark I can think of is: huh?!? Come again?

But my point is that there's only one sun that affects us "directly."

Are you then saying that there are other "gods"? That affect us "indirectly"?

Again, why do you make this connection between the sun and God? In my world no better than saying "oh look, I have an eraser on my table, therefore there must be a God".

It's evidence of a constant which exists outside of the evolutionary "chain" on earth, and yet without it life wouldn't exist.

Again, I can't see any connection between the sun and "God the Creator" whatsoever.

Please feel free to explain. One thing before you go on though - what on Earth do you mean when you say that the Sun is a "constant"?

What makes you think it's just a theory? That's the whole point, because in order for me to present it to you in a way that you can understand, I have to present it in the form of an argument. But ultimately what are you going to accept? That which is based upon an argument or, the actual reality itself?

So far I have seen no "arguments", only statements and assumptions.

BTW, any description of the world is "just a theory". The question is to which extent the theory is reasonable. There are a number of tools which can assist us in deciding this. However, so far I haven't seen you even glancing at the toolbox...

 

[Iacchus]

Before we take this any further, would you please explain "the intuitive process" as I have no idea what you mean by this.

We have a soul.

Communication presupposes a common language. That's why I insist on you defining and explaining the terms you use.

We have a soul.

It also presupposes that we have a common understanding of what standards of evidence need to be satisfied in order for us to agree that we "know" something. I personally adhere to logic and the scientific method (conclusions drawn from empirical evidence on the basis of repeatabliity and testability). If you know of any other method of ascertaining "knowledge", please do share it with us.

We have a soul.

The mere fact that we're here says nothing about "how" or "why" we got here. Examining the human body however says quite a lot about "how" we got here - no fingerprints or any other tell-tale signs of any deities though...

We have a soul.

What do you mean by "my whole argument is based on something which hasn't been determined yet"? Please explain as I truly don't understand what you are getting at here.

We have a soul.

The only remark I can think of is: huh?!? Come again?

We have a soul.

Are you then saying that there are other "gods"? That affect us "indirectly"?

Again, why do you make this connection between the sun and God? In my world no better than saying "oh look, I have an eraser on my table, therefore there must be a God".


Again, I can't see any connection between the sun and "God the Creator" whatsoever.

Please feel free to explain. One thing before you go on though - what on Earth do you mean when you say that the Sun is a "constant"?

Did you know that in heaven God is portrayed as the Sun?

So far I have seen no "arguments", only statements and assumptions.

We have a soul.

BTW, any description of the world is "just a theory". The question is to which extent the theory is reasonable. There are a number of tools which can assist us in deciding this. However, so far I haven't seen you even glancing at the toolbox...

My toolbox is "my soul."

 

[CWL]

We have a soul. x7

Merely repeating it ad nauseam won't make it so.

I take it that you are not willing to explain yourself any further. Alrightie, for my conclusion about your theories I kindly refer to my second sig line.

Thank you and good night.

 

[Tricky]

Merely repeating it ad nauseam won't make it so.

I take it that you are not willing to explain yourself any further.

Yes indeed, Iacchus's ideas have indeed blazed with a brilliance about half as bright as a dead firefly.