So, what is Intelligent Design? [Archive]

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 09:38 PM

From the previous thread, Upchurch's angry rant (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34397&perpage=40&pagenumber=4) ...

Originally posted by Tricky

But you said something to the effect of "One sun means one God." Well there are lots of suns, so by your own reasoning, that means lots of gods. Or perhaps each solar system has it's own god who can't do anything outside of that solar system. It's really hard to tell what you mean when you keep making such self-contradictory statements.And yet there is only one sun that we are familiar with (in a representative sense), and hence One God.

If you scroll back to my little idealized debate, you will note that I mentioned how ID people seem to think that their kind of intelligence is the same as the Designer's intelligence. This amounts to collossal hubris, and you have verified your own exaggerated sense of self-importance by your own words. God could be anything. It doesn't have to be like you (and I certainly hope it's not. :p ) Well first of all we have to go with the evidence that's presented to us -- as much as I'm sure you disdain the use of the Bible -- and backtrack from there if need be.

Tricky

24th January 2004, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
From the previous thread, Upchurch's angry rant (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34397&perpage=40&pagenumber=4) ...

And yet there is only one sun that we are familiar with (in a representative sense), and hence One God.
No, I'm quite familiar with a number of suns. Sol happens to be closer, but they are all pretty much the same kind of fusion machine.

And what the heck do you mean by "in the representative sense"? I assume it means it is the only one you call "the sun", but that labelling means absolutely nothing. They are all suns. Sol happens to be the one we are orbiting.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well first of all we have to go with the evidence that's presented to us -- as much as I'm sure you disdain the use of the Bible -- and backtrack from there if need be.
LOL. Yeah, I have a few problems with the bible as evidence, especially its numerous self-contradictions.

The evidence that I trust is testable and replicable. 2000 year old books of philosophy and personal anecdotes don't fit into that category.

Regnad Kcin

24th January 2004, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet there is only one sun that we are familiar with (in a representative sense), and hence One God.Wow.

T'ai Chi

24th January 2004, 09:52 PM

Iacchus,

The book The Design Inference, by Dembski is great!

It was published by Cambridge University Press in their Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory.

You can also check out http://www.designinference.com/.

Sure, ID is more friendly towards theism than atheism, but intelligent design does not specify a designer, as you can detect design without knowing who the designer(s) is.

24th January 2004, 09:55 PM

There's something I call "tautological creationism".

It's the kind of "creation" where the universe was suddenly created at some point (it doesn't matter when) looking like it's been around for about 15 billion years, and then after this point of creation it's let run itself with exactly zero outside interference.

That's all the data can suport. This leaves us with two possibilities:

1) There is no creator
2) The creator has is either maliciously misleading or has a cosmic sense of humor.

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

I have no evidence for a God, but like most atheists, I do not claim to know for certain that one does not exist. With proper evidence, I could be convinced. You got any?

But if one does exist, I would guess that it is unlike anything you or anyone else has ever imagined. Quit trying to force your god into human mold. Well I suppose it should be as easy as saying look around you, because if He does exist, what other evidence is there?

Of course that doesn't fit the bill with most people because all they can see is what they experience through their "physical senses." In which case maybe it's not so much a matter of discovering the evidence, as it is a matter of interpreting it? Indeed, and where might that interpretation come from, except from within?

As the scriptures say, "The kingdom of heaven is within."

Tricky

24th January 2004, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Sure, ID is more friendly towards theism than atheism, but intelligent design does not specify a designer, as you can detect design without knowing who the designer(s) is.
I politely disagree. You can detect patterns, in a snowflake or a fractal, but it doesn't require any design. It is simply the way things fit together. To require that patterns be created by "designer" is an emotional inability on the part of the investigator to admit that there are simply some things he cannot (yet) explain. It is tempting (and comforting) to hypothesize a higher consciousness that can explain these things, but it is intellectually lazy. Look at all the things that used to be explained by "goddidit", but now have perfectly mundane explanations thanks to the tireless work of scientists who would not accept "because that's the way God made it" as an answer.

Tricky

24th January 2004, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well I suppose it should be as easy as saying look around you, because if He does exist, what other evidence is there?
Believe me, I look around a lot. I still see no evidence.
Originally posted by Iacchus
Of course that doesn't fit the bill with most people because all they can see is what they experience through their "physical senses." In which case maybe it's not so much a matter of discovering the evidence, as it is a matter of interpreting it? Indeed, and where might that interpretation come from, except from within?
Well good. At least you admit that it is your own personal interpretation. This is the crux of the matter. Real truth does not require interpretation. It is testable and repeatable. As you well know, no two biblical scholars interpret the Bible the same way. If none of them are definately wrong, then you must admit that there is no absolute "truth" in the bible, but only what your own mind interprets. That is fine in philosophy, but when it comes to explaining how the world works, I require a little more objectivity.

Originally posted by Iacchus
As the scriptures say, "The kingdom of heaven is within."Another way to phrase this might be "it's all in your mind."

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

But if one does exist, I would guess that it is unlike anything you or anyone else has ever imagined. Quit trying to force your god into human mold. First of all you have to be able to ascertain whether God exists or not, before you can address whether Jesus Christ was the son of God or, in fact God Himself. And until you do, you can't even begin to think about the possibility along these lines.

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by jj

There's something I call "tautological creationism".

It's the kind of "creation" where the universe was suddenly created at some point (it doesn't matter when) looking like it's been around for about 15 billion years, and then after this point of creation it's let run itself with exactly zero outside interference.

That's all the data can suport. This leaves us with two possibilities:

1) There is no creator
2) The creator has is either maliciously misleading or has a cosmic sense of humor. Well what if we were to put it this way ... If God didn't conceal Himself from us maybe we wouldn't seek Him? ... or, "meaning" itself.

In other words maybe all God is is the quest for meaning?

Phil

24th January 2004, 10:28 PM

Tricky

24th January 2004, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
First of all you have to be able to ascertain whether God exists or not, before you can address whether Jesus Christ was the son of God or, in fact God Himself. And until you do, you can't even begin to think about the possibility along these lines.
I take it then that you have been able to ascertain whether God exists or not. Did you reach this discovery because you simply cannot concieve of how all this could happen without a God? If so, I would ascribe this to your inability to conceive of possibilities outside of your own beliefs. Does the thought of "no God" so horrify you that you simply refuse to let your mind contemplate it?

Well I have contemplated God. I have contemplated many Gods. I was a Christian until my late teens and I have looked at many other belief systems, and I have found that none of them (so far) could stand up to intellectual scrutiny. None of them had tenets that could pass a rigorous test. They contradicted each other and themselves. So I settled into a philosophy which acknowledges other possibilities, but requires them to present hard evidence (more than "just look around you"). In my opinion, that is the only fair way to evaluate belief systems. None of them have presented any evidence so far, so I remain an atheist until they do.

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by Phil

No, I think that you have to ascertain whether or not god exists. It seems Tricky is fine with a naturalist or skeptical worldview, and not thinking along those lines at all.No, we have to be able to ascertain whether God exists or not, before we can question whether we were created in His image.

You seem to be trying real hard, but I'm reading ontology here. Ontology? What do you mean? ...

Max560

24th January 2004, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
What is Intelligent Design? Is it possible to acknowledge that Goddidit and acknowledge the merits of evolution as well? I think so. Of course I don't think we're speaking of the same Intelligent Design as the Creationists, if in fact that entails taking the Bible too literally.

What do you think?

It seems unlikely that the theory of evolution is going to be upended by evidence.

As evidence in support of evolutionary theory continues to mount, you can see a corresponding "evolution" of theistic thought on the subject.

First, there is a hostile, flat out rejection of any non-god/bible centered idea. Whenever possible, proponents of the new theory are persecuted and forced to recant (e.g., Galileo).

Next comes a long struggle where efforts are made to supress any work which would strengthen the non-churchsanctioned theory. This usually has the effect of slowing down the accumulation of knowledge. Thankfully, this tactic is never completely successful.

Finally, as the knowledge base grows, and it becomes increasingly obvious that the theological position is flat out wrong, a need to save face and to preserve the faith develops. The best way to do this seems to be to finally accept the theory, and simply append the notion "because God designed it that way". Further face saving seems to involve distancing onesself from the previously held hardline stance- for example:

"Of course I don't think we're speaking of the same Intelligent Design as the Creationists, if in fact that entails taking the Bible too literally".

The idea seems to be that theists want to demonstrate that they were in the evidence based camp all along, yet at the same time preserve their belief system. The "I think there is merit in theory X, just like God planned it" approach seems to fit the bill nicely. You get the benefit of appearing capable of rational discourse in regards to theory X, without really having to defend the glib arguement of intelligent design.

Intelligent Design is such an easy stance to take in regards to evolution. You don't even have to provide evidence to support it-you just have to say "that's just the beauty of God's design" to whatever evidence is presented.

People will question the Intelligent Design stance, but if you hold this stance, no one will really force the issue with you. No one expects you to actually provide evidence to support this position, because no one believes you can support the position. Instead, the arguement gets deflected or derailed somehow, and the topic gets dropped. This will give you some sense of satisfaction in that no one was able to disprove your view point, and as long as you don't really do some critical thinking about your own position, you can keep your belief system relatively intact.

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

I take it then that you have been able to ascertain whether God exists or not. Did you reach this discovery because you simply cannot concieve of how all this could happen without a God? If so, I would ascribe this to your inability to conceive of possibilities outside of your own beliefs. Does the thought of "no God" so horrify you that you simply refuse to let your mind contemplate it?I discovered it because I was forced up against the wall with it, and am afraid I'm going to have to leave it at that for now.

Well I have contemplated God. I have contemplated many Gods. I was a Christian until my late teens and I have looked at many other belief systems, and I have found that none of them (so far) could stand up to intellectual scrutiny. None of them had tenets that could pass a rigorous test. They contradicted each other and themselves. Yes, this was one of my great experiences of life as well, but unfortunately I wasn't ready for the discovery I made next (in reference to above).

So I settled into a philosophy which acknowledges other possibilities, but requires them to present hard evidence (more than "just look around you"). In my opinion, that is the only fair way to evaluate belief systems. None of them have presented any evidence so far, so I remain an atheist until they do. Yes, I said the same thing when the Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door (i.e., early on), "That if God does exists, there's no way I'm going to accept it upon these people's say so and, He would have to reveal Himself to me personally or, in a way that I can understand." And that's essentially the way it happened.

Phil

24th January 2004, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, we have to be able to ascertain whether God exists or not, before we can question whether we were created in His image.
Forgive me, but I didn't read any post in this thread that made that argument. Perhaps I overlooked it.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Ontology? What do you mean? ...
Well, not that I hold sway over what you or anyone on this board does, but I would advise you that if you are going to argue in favor of the existence of god---and again maybe I've read too much into your posts---but if you are, it's a good idea to define what you mean by "God" up front.

An ontological argument is an argument for the existence of God based upon the meaning of the term "God", and generally those arguments cause discussions to devolve into philosophical nonsense, and no conclusions can be drawn.

But if you define what you mean by "God" at the outset, we can proceed more smoothly.

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by Max560

It seems unlikely that the theory of evolution is going to be upended by evidence.I've been around long enough to know how to make up my own mind on the matter, Thanks!

As matter-of-fact this has pretty much been my postition from the getgo.

As evidence in support of evolutionary theory continues to mount, you can see a corresponding "evolution" of theistic thought on the subject.So let me asky you this, Do you believe that God exists? ... Obviously you don't. ;)

First, there is a hostile, flat out rejection of any non-god/bible centered idea. Whenever possible, proponents of the new theory are persecuted and forced to recant (e.g., Galileo).Naturally, people are resistant to change, and I don't care what side of the fence you're sitting on, be it science or religion.

Next comes a long struggle where efforts are made to supress any work which would strengthen the non-churchsanctioned theory. This usually has the effect of slowing down the accumulation of knowledge. Thankfully, this tactic is never completely successful.And yet you can't just throw out a whole body of knowledge just because of an emerging trend which, is what science was at the time.

Finally, as the knowledge base grows, and it becomes increasingly obvious that the theological position is flat out wrong, a need to save face and to preserve the faith develops. The best way to do this seems to be to finally accept the theory, and simply append the notion "because God designed it that way". Further face saving seems to involve distancing onesself from the previously held hardline stance- for example:Ever hear the expression, "The pendulum swings in the opposite direction?" Be careful what you say, you may wind up eating your own words.

The idea seems to be that theists want to demonstrate that they were in the evidence based camp all along, yet at the same time preserve their belief system. The "I think there is merit in theory X, just like God planned it" approach seems to fit the bill nicely. You get the benefit of appearing capable of rational discourse in regards to theory X, without really having to defend the glib arguement of intelligent design.Your mistake is that you've lumped me in the same category with everybody else.

Intelligent Design is such an easy stance to take in regards to evolution. You don't even have to provide evidence to support it-you just have to say "that's just the beauty of God's design" to whatever evidence is presented. Yeah, that would be the easy way out now wouldn't it?

People will question the Intelligent Design stance, but if you hold this stance, no one will really force the issue with you. No one expects you to actually provide evidence to support this position, because no one believes you can support the position. Instead, the arguement gets deflected or derailed somehow, and the topic gets dropped. This will give you some sense of satisfaction in that no one was able to disprove your view point, and as long as you don't really do some critical thinking about your own position, you can keep your belief system relatively intact. And what's to keep me from thrusting the door wide open then? A "non-truth?" Exposure to such truths can be very dangerous, especially when you're not ready for it.

Tricky

24th January 2004, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, we have to be able to ascertain whether God exists or not, before we can question whether we were created in His image.

Aye, there's the rub. I am quite certain that you have been able to satisfy yourself that God exists, but that does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that you have ascertained it. If you had, you should be able to easily convince any of us of that fact. The fact that you cannot do so is not rooted in my inability to see the obvious, but rather in your inability to make it obvious. Any argument for God that you give (or at least any that you have given so far) can eventually be boiled down to the essence: It feels right to you. There is no evidence, only interpretation. There is no truth, only trust. There is no fact, only faith.

There are millions of people in the world with faith. Their faiths are as unalike as apples and warthogs (oranges are in many ways very like apples). I cannot let faith equal truth, because then there is no truth, just competing faiths. Truth has to be testable and repeatable. If you cannot do that, then it is not truth, but just conjecture.

At the age of 16, I freed myself of living by other people's conjectures. The liberation of having my own ideas was wonderful. Everyone should try it.

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by Phil

Forgive me, but I didn't read any post in this thread that made that argument. Perhaps I overlooked it.Yeah, I wasn't so sure how clear I was here either and figured I would have to reiterate.

Well, not that I hold sway over what you or anyone on this board does, but I would advise you that if you are going to argue in favor of the existence of god---and again maybe I've read too much into your posts---but if you are, it's a good idea to define what you mean by "God" up front.

An ontological argument is an argument for the existence of God based upon the meaning of the term "God", and generally those arguments cause discussions to devolve into philosophical nonsense, and no conclusions can be drawn.

But if you define what you mean by "God" at the outset, we can proceed more smoothly. That sounds reasonable enough to me, unfortunately it covers a lot of territory and I'm not sure where to begin? Perhaps we can begin again with this tomorrow?

BillyJoe

25th January 2004, 12:04 AM

Iacchus,

Originally posted by Iacchus
I discovered it because I was forced up against the wall with it, and am afraid I'm going to have to leave it at that for now.

Yes, this was one of my great experiences of life as well, but unfortunately I wasn't ready for the discovery I made next (in reference to above).

Yes, I said the same thing when the Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door (i.e., early on), "That if God does exists, there's no way I'm going to accept it upon these people's say so and, He would have to reveal Himself to me personally or, in a way that I can understand." And that's essentially the way it happened. Well, I know I'm wasting my time but anyway.....

Can you please, PLEASE, PLEASE puncture the suspense and just SIMPLY tell us as STRAIGHTFORWARDLY as you can WHAT it is that happened to you that FORCED the issue for you and MADE you accept that GOD EXISTS.

PLEASE.

BillyJoe

Iacchus

25th January 2004, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Aye, there's the rub. I am quite certain that you have been able to satisfy yourself that God exists, but that does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that you have ascertained it. Yes, but that does not by any stretch of the imagination make you correct either.

If you had, you should be able to easily convince any of us of that fact. The fact that you cannot do so is not rooted in my inability to see the obvious, but rather in your inability to make it obvious. Why, because the whole weight of scientific evidence can't be proven wrong? Guess again ...

Any argument for God that you give (or at least any that you have given so far) can eventually be boiled down to the essence: It feels right to you. There is no evidence, only interpretation. There is no truth, only trust. There is no fact, only faith.Nope.

There are millions of people in the world with faith. Their faiths are as unalike as apples and warthogs (oranges are in many ways very like apples). I cannot let faith equal truth, because then there is no truth, just competing faiths. Truth has to be testable and repeatable. If you cannot do that, then it is not truth, but just conjecture. And yet the truth exists in everything (remember I said the evidence is all around us?), although "relative" from one thing to next. Whereas more often than not, it's a matter of separating the wheat from the chaff ... although truth is found in the chaff as well. ;)

At the age of 16, I freed myself of living by other people's conjectures. The liberation of having my own ideas was wonderful. Everyone should try it. Yes, this is something we all owe to ourselves.

T'ai Chi

25th January 2004, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by jj

It's the kind of "creation" where the universe was suddenly created at some point (it doesn't matter when) looking like it's been around for about 15 billion years, and then after this point of creation it's let run itself with exactly zero outside interference.

Or the Big Bang is local, just one of many Big Bangs. Or there are many universes and ours is just one. Or other dimensions. Or time is cyclical. Or...

1) There is no creator
2) The creator has is either maliciously misleading or has a cosmic sense of humor.

Or there are several creators. Or there is a creator but it is not a personified thing. Or...

T'ai Chi

25th January 2004, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

I politely disagree. You can detect patterns, in a snowflake or a fractal, but it doesn't require any design. It is simply the way things fit together.

"the way things fit together" is sometimes designed. Sometimes it is not. Design inference is a method to help decide if it is or not.

To require that patterns be created by "designer" is an emotional inability on the part of the investigator to admit that there are simply some things he cannot (yet) explain.

Not necessarily. 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.

Look at all the things that used to be explained by "goddidit", ...

Sorry, I'm not going to let this drift into a science vs. the Bible discussion. The Design Inference is a mathematical and statistical work, and details methods for discriminating designed from undesigned objects. The designer, its purposes, etc., are not an issue, at least in this book.

Iacchus

25th January 2004, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Iacchus,

Well, I know I'm wasting my time but anyway.....

Can you please, PLEASE, PLEASE puncture the suspense and just SIMPLY tell us as STRAIGHTFORWARDLY as you can WHAT it is that happened to you that FORCED the issue for you and MADE you accept that GOD EXISTS.

PLEASE.

BillyJoe I was going to refer you to a link on my website but now I'm not so sure. It doesn't seem to go into quite so much depth as I thought it did? However, here's the link to Chapter 11 (http://www.dionysus.org/x1101.html) anyway ... http://www.dionysus.org/x1101.html (up to the part about the Church of Smyrna).

Also, the whole idea gets pretty juicy in the last half of Chapter 13 (http://www.dionysus.org/x1302.html) ... http://www.dionysus.org/x1302.html

Iacchus

25th January 2004, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Sorry, I'm not going to let this drift into a science vs. the Bible discussion. The Design Inference is a mathematical and statistical work, and details methods for discriminating designed from undesigned objects. The designer, its purposes, etc., are not an issue, at least in this book. Yes, I followed the link you were referring to here, and it looks like it might be a very good book. ;)

http://www.designinference.com/

BillyJoe

25th January 2004, 01:26 AM

BillyJoe

25th January 2004, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Not necessarily. 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.No, but it would still be a category error wouldn't it?

Iacchus

25th January 2004, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe

I have followed a couple of links to your online book already but, I'm sorry, my brain starts going numb after a few lines. :(
I blame myself though. :)

Couldn't you just SUMMARIZE it for me?

BillyJoe It has something to do with my discovering the world of spririts exist and, the fact that God's counterpart, Evil, existed as well. While it was something I continued to struggle with for the next twelve or so years.

BillyJoe

25th January 2004, 02:15 AM

Iacchus

Originally posted by Iacchus
It has something to do with my discovering the world of spririts exist and, the fact that God's counterpart, Evil, existed as well. While it was something I continued to struggle with for the next twelve or so years. Okay, I give up. I can't seem to get a straight answer from you.

BillyJoe.

lifegazer

25th January 2004, 02:26 AM

The base-energy of our existence progresses from its base- indeterminism towards the classical order and law seen within our perception.
One must ask oneself how existence becomes progressively self-ordered, as perceived, without ID.

BillyJoe

25th January 2004, 04:15 AM

lifegazer,

Originally posted by lifegazer
One must ask oneself how existence becomes progressively self-ordered, as perceived, without ID. One must ask oneself how ID comes into existence without a Creator
(or, alternatively, how this Creator comes into existence ;) )

BillyJoe.

lifegazer

25th January 2004, 04:36 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
lifegazer,

One must ask oneself how ID comes into existence without a Creator
(or, alternatively, how this Creator comes into existence ;) )

BillyJoe.
BJ, a primal-cause is eternal (timeless), by default. There is no cause for something considered the primal-cause of creation.

pupdog

25th January 2004, 05:59 AM

There are a lot of workers in the field of evolution who are christians, but not IDers. ID appears to be part of a group of Creationists' end run around prohibitions of teaching Creationism in public schools (see the works of Phillip Johnson, especially where he talks of the "Wedge Strategy").

The best discussions I've seen can be found in "Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics" edited Robert T. Pennock, which includes contributions from both sides of the debate, and "Tower of Babel" by Pennock, which describes the history and philosophy of the debate.

When advocates of teaching ID in public schools claim it is a valid alternative scientific theory, and not an effort to bring religion into the schools, it is almost impossible to miss the "wink-wink, nod" that follows. As I've said elsewhere, when the student asks who is this Designer, is the teacher [sic] going to say "Homer Simpson" or "Sammy Sosa"?

BillyJoe

25th January 2004, 06:35 AM

lifegazer,

Originally posted by lifegazer
BJ, a primal-cause is eternal (timeless), by default. There is no cause for something considered the primal-cause of creation. Yeah, the primal cause uncaused. Well, let's call it.....hmmm....let me see.....oh yes.....God! Sound good to you?
God the Intelligent Designer.
Now maybe you can explain how this adds to the some total of our knowledge.

BillyJoe.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

25th January 2004, 06:47 AM

T'ai said:
The book The Design Inference, by Dembski is great!
Dembski is an idiot. And I don't say that lightly.

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

25th January 2004, 06:53 AM

Lifegazer said:
The base-energy of our existence progresses from its base- indeterminism towards the classical order and law seen within our perception.
As Stimpy would say: I detect some syntax here, but no meaning.

~~ Paul

T'ai Chi

25th January 2004, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
No, but it would still be a category error wouldn't it?

I'm not sure I follow

BillyJoe

25th January 2004, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
As Stimpy would say: I detect some syntax here, but no meaning. Let me have ago....

The base-energy of our existence progresses from its base....

"the base..... progresses from its base" :D
Oops, sorry, the translation....
We start with zero energy and build up energy

.....indeterminism.....

Hmmm.....maybe a reference to probabilistic nature of the quantum (micro)world.

.....towards the classical order and law seen within our perception.

"seen within our perception" :D
Okay, now we are in the macroscopic world ("seen within our perception") where classical physics holds sway.

No, actually I don't understand it either

BillyJoe

T'ai Chi

25th January 2004, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by pupdog

As I've said elsewhere, when the student asks who is this Designer, is the teacher [sic] going to say "Homer Simpson" or "Sammy Sosa"?

ID only tries to develop methods to detect design. If a student asked the question above (of course the question would only even make sense if design was first detected on a grand scale), the teacher could respond that we do not know, and ID doesn't and can't tell you that.

BillyJoe

25th January 2004, 07:44 AM

T'ai Chi,

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'm not sure I follow [the bit about the category error]I possibly have the term wrong but.....

An arrowhead is used for a specific purpose and it is designed with that specific purpose in mind.
Evolution, on the other hand is blind as evidenced by such things as vestigial organs (eg appendix), faulty organs (eg the human eye), etc etc.

So it's a category error to make a connection between arrowheads, which were intelligently designed, and living things to make the conclusion that life was Intelligently Designed

BillyJoe

Iacchus

25th January 2004, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Well good. At least you admit that it is your own personal interpretation. And yet what is it about reality that doesn't require our own interpretation? How can you possibly tell someone that 1 + 1 = 2 ... if, they can't see it for themselves?

This is the crux of the matter. Real truth does not require interpretation. Afraid not. The parity check is, always was and, will always remain with the individual.

It is testable and repeatable. However, it still requires a human being to "interpret" the evidence.

As you well know, no two biblical scholars interpret the Bible the same way. If none of them are definately wrong, then you must admit that there is no absolute "truth" in the bible, but only what your own mind interprets. That is fine in philosophy, but when it comes to explaining how the world works, I require a little more objectivity.As I had said before, the absolute truth is very much like the sun the sky, by which a whole myriad of truths -- in effect life on this planet -- can be derived. Yes, and each one has a unique relationship with, that "absolute truth."

Another way to phrase this might be "it's all in your mind." Or, perhaps in your heart?

T'ai Chi

25th January 2004, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Dembski is an idiot. And I don't say that lightly.
~~ Paul

http://www.designinference.com/documents/05.02.CV.htm

Yeah, what a slacker. :rolleyes:

T'ai Chi

25th January 2004, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe

Evolution, on the other hand is blind as ...

Well that is what the ID proponents are trying to see if it is the case.

Phil

25th January 2004, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
I was going to refer you to a link on my website but now I'm not so sure. It doesn't seem to go into quite so much depth as I thought it did? However, here's the link to Chapter 11 (http://www.dionysus.org/x1101.html) anyway ... http://www.dionysus.org/x1101.html (up to the part about the Church of Smyrna).

Also, the whole idea gets pretty juicy in the last half of Chapter 13 (http://www.dionysus.org/x1302.html) ... http://www.dionysus.org/x1302.html
This is a little of the topic for the thread, and I apologize to all, but I was skimming through the website you linked to, Iacchus. I'm assuming you're Dennis Hamilton IRL. If so, something struck as I was reading, and forgive me if this is totally off base. As I said, I haven't had a chance to read the material thoroughly, but I read enough to get certain impressions. Are you simply drawing a parallel to your life and that of Christ or Dionysus, or do you actually think you are the second coming?

If it's the former, I applaud your imagination. If it's the latter, you have other issues than debating ID with us with which to contend.

Please. I mean no offense by this, and I've been known to be thick about things before, but could you address briefly what you're getting at with the website?

Tricky

25th January 2004, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet what is it about reality that doesn't require our own interpretation? How can you possibly tell someone that 1 + 1 = 2 ... if, they can't see it for themselves?
All right, I'm going to try to make this simple for you. Some things can be shown to be fact empirically by repeated tests. For example, you release a stone from your hand and it falls. Every time. You can repeat this experiment as often as you like and it always works. Thus, you can say that gravity is a truth. Add one object to another object and you get two objects. That works. Every time.

Now we step up the pace a bit. Examine an organism to see if it contains DNA. It does every time. We know what DNA is and how to extract it. We even know how to analyze it with consistant results.

Now try to examine an organism to see if it contains evidence of a designer. You cannot. You have no idea what fingerprints a creator would leave or how to test for them. You simply cannot devise such a test. All of the "evidence" is your interpretation because there is no data.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Afraid not. The parity check is, always was and, will always remain with the individual.
Exactly. Nothing can be tested because each individual is a different case. The "truths" that you find "in your heart" are not truths, at least in the sense of being factual. They are, essentially, beliefs, which are based on your emotions, not data. If they really were "truths" then, like gravity, they would be true for everybody.

Originally posted by Iacchus
However, it still requires a human being to "interpret" the evidence.
It does not. It merely needs to work as you have predicted it would work. This is why the Randi Million Dollar Challenge is specifically set up to have experiments which require no judging. If a dowser can consistantly locate hidden objects, then he wins. You don't have to "interpret" whether of not he found the object.

What normally happens, though, is that a paranormal believe will ignore the results of the tests and start interpreting reasons for failure. This is not scientific. Anything that requires all interpretation and no data is not scientific. That is why ID is not scientific.

Originally posted by Iacchus

As I had said before, the absolute truth is very much like the sun the sky, by which a whole myriad of truths -- in effect life on this planet -- can be derived. Yes, and each one has a unique relationship with, that "absolute truth."
That implies that some truths are more "true" than other. I object to the use of the word "truth" to refer to something that is only opinion. I have often heard people say "it's true for me," thinking that this phrase somehow imparts veracity to their claims. But a person could claim absolutely anything followed by the phrase "it's true for me". To borrow from my childhood lingo, "your sayin' so don't make it so."

Originally posted by Iacchus
Or, perhaps in your heart?
Nice poetry, but of course not factual. Believe me, I love poetry and I completely understand the heart=feeling brain=thinking metaphors. In poetry, it is wonderful device. In the real world, the heart is not the seat of emotions. Interestingly, I have heard that many of the Greeks thought that the liver was the repository of emotion. Go figure.

pupdog

25th January 2004, 08:52 AM

from T'ai Chi: ...the teacher could respond that we do not know, and ID doesn't and can't tell you that. ...said with that wink and a nod.
Is it a coincidence that IDers are evangelical christians? Behe and Dembski may not be a literalist as other Creationists (such as the Chalcedon group (intent on establishing a theocracy in America), but their arguments have been refuted many times. Phillip Johnson, one of the leaders of the "Wedge Strategy" wrote "Truth (with a capital T) is truth as God knows it. When God is no longer in the picture there can be no Truth, only conflicting human opinions." Johnson and others of his ilk believe that there is some sort of grand conspiracy amongst scientists whose purpose is not to advance knowledge, but to refute Christianity.

For further discussion of this disingenuous aspect of Creationist "scientists", I refer readers to chapter 8 of Robert Pennock's "Tower of Babel."

T'ai Chi

25th January 2004, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by pupdog
from T'ai Chi: ...said with that wink and a nod.

Nope, I typed with no wink and no nod, despite your beliefs otherwise.

Is it a coincidence that IDers are evangelical christians?

Some are, some aren't. A counterexample is ID proponent (I believe I read that in one of his books) that comes to mind is Huston Smith. He is not an evangelical Christian.

From the ReligiousTolerance site, they list the following belief types that wouldn't contradict what ID stands for:

"A monotheist (e.g. a Jew or Muslim who believes in one God)._
A duotheist (e.g. a Wiccan or Zoroastrian who believes in two deities)._
A trinitarian (e.g. a Christian who believes in three divine personality within the unity of a single godhead).
A polytheist (e.g. a Hindu who believes in many Gods and Goddesses)._
A Deist who believes that God created the universe, set it in motion, left, and has not been seen since.
An Atheist, Agnostic or Humanist who holds open the possibility of a very advanced species of intelligent beings existing in the universe._"

I do believe that since ID is belief friendly, sure, there are bound to be more religious people supporting it, much like there are bound to be more atheists in the skeptical movement.

Iacchus

25th January 2004, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Phil

This is a little of the topic for the thread, and I apologize to all, but I was skimming through the website you linked to, Iacchus. I'm assuming you're Dennis Hamilton IRL. If so, something struck as I was reading, and forgive me if this is totally off base. As I said, I haven't had a chance to read the material thoroughly, but I read enough to get certain impressions. Are you simply drawing a parallel to your life and that of Christ or Dionysus, or do you actually think you are the second coming?

If it's the former, I applaud your imagination. If it's the latter, you have other issues than debating ID with us with which to contend.

Please. I mean no offense by this, and I've been known to be thick about things before, but could you address briefly what you're getting at with the website? Do I think I'm Dionysus or Jesus Christ? No. However, do I think what I've written is a parallel and hence "represents" the second coming? Quite possibly. ;)

Of course there's another quirk in the whole matter here. For why am I speaking about Dionysus and not Jesus? And indeed the Book of Revelation has already been fulfilled and, the Last Judgment was performed in the year 1757 in the Spiritual World. For a more complete account please refer to Chapter 1 (http://www.dionysus.org/x0101.html) of my book ...

http://www.dionysus.org/x0101.html

LFTKBS

25th January 2004, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Phil

An ontological argument is an argument for the existence of God based upon the meaning of the term "God", and generally those arguments cause discussions to devolve into philosophical nonsense, and no conclusions can be drawn.

Interesting Ian's ears are burning.

KelvinG

25th January 2004, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

http://www.designinference.com/documents/05.02.CV.htm

Yeah, what a slacker. :rolleyes:

A long, possibly impressive resume does not disqualify someone from being an idiot.
But, to be more diplomatic, it might be better to say Dembski's work is idiotic.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

25th January 2004, 09:33 AM

T'ai said:
Yeah, what a slacker.
Ooh, a curriculum vitae.

Dembski claims that the flagellum has "specified complexity" because the probability of it being created by the action of all natural causes is less than the probability bound. First of all, we cannot enumerate all possible natural causes, only known natural causes. But, more absurdly, he treats the flagellum as a discrete combinatorial object. How does he compute the probability of its formation? By considering the chance gathering of a bunch of proteins in one place, then their chance assembly into a flagellum. That's ridiculous, since that's obviously not how it happened. Where did the genome go?

So (1) his definition of specified complexity is faulty; and (2) then he doesn't even consider all known natural causes, but merely one cause: pure chance.

So, as usual with Creationists, it's god vs. pure chance.

~~ Paul

Dymanic

25th January 2004, 10:10 AM

Rather than asking whether there is evidence for intelligent design, it seems to me that the question really is whether there is evidence for intentional design.

One possible argument might then be that, yes God designed all creatures, and the reason some have features which must really be considered design flaws is that He just isn't all that smart.

Iacchus

25th January 2004, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

All right, I'm going to try to make this simple for you. Some things can be shown to be fact empirically by repeated tests. For example, you release a stone from your hand and it falls. Every time. You can repeat this experiment as often as you like and it always works. Thus, you can say that gravity is a truth. Add one object to another object and you get two objects. That works. Every time. No, it still requires a human being to run the tests and "validate" the results.

Now we step up the pace a bit. Examine an organism to see if it contains DNA. It does every time. We know what DNA is and how to extract it. We even know how to analyze it with consistant results.And if there were no sun, would there be DNA?

Now try to examine an organism to see if it contains evidence of a designer. You cannot. You have no idea what fingerprints a creator would leave or how to test for them. You simply cannot devise such a test. All of the "evidence" is your interpretation because there is no data.It always has and always will be "my" interpretion. Just like 1 + 1 = 2. It will always be what my "mind" interprets it to be.

Exactly. Nothing can be tested because each individual is a different case. The "truths" that you find "in your heart" are not truths, at least in the sense of being factual. They are, essentially, beliefs, which are based on your emotions, not data. If they really were "truths" then, like gravity, they would be true for everybody.The truth exists in everything, although "relative" from one thing to the next. However, the one true constant we have is the sun. Now, can you see a possible correlation -- and hence "inherent design" -- to a Creator here?

It does not. It merely needs to work as you have predicted it would work. This is why the Randi Million Dollar Challenge is specifically set up to have experiments which require no judging. If a dowser can consistantly locate hidden objects, then he wins. You don't have to "interpret" whether of not he found the object.Do you know what would be ironic? Is if I could teach everyone on this board how to see The Truth for themselves. And we could all tell James Randi to go take a hike! And we could say, Sorry Randi, the truth is self evident and you'll have to see it for yourself. Now that would be a blast! :D

What normally happens, though, is that a paranormal believe will ignore the results of the tests and start interpreting reasons for failure. This is not scientific. Anything that requires all interpretation and no data is not scientific. That is why ID is not scientific.How about all the remote viewing experiments conducted by the CIA? As I understand much of that was successful and, repeatable. Not unless the Nova program that I saw was entirely wrong?

That implies that some truths are more "true" than other. I object to the use of the word "truth" to refer to something that is only opinion. I have often heard people say "it's true for me," thinking that this phrase somehow imparts veracity to their claims. But a person could claim absolutely anything followed by the phrase "it's true for me". To borrow from my childhood lingo, "your sayin' so don't make it so."As I said the truth exists in everything. However, as I already said, there comes a time when you have to separate the wheat from the chaff. Hmm ... And that time may be arriving shortly. ;)

Nice poetry, but of course not factual. Believe me, I love poetry and I completely understand the heart=feeling brain=thinking metaphors. In poetry, it is wonderful device. In the real world, the heart is not the seat of emotions. Interestingly, I have heard that many of the Greeks thought that the liver was the repository of emotion. Go figure. This is all debatable. While I'm afraid I have to stick with my own experience on this one. ;)

Iacchus

25th January 2004, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Dymanic

Rather than asking whether there is evidence for intelligent design, it seems to me that the question really is whether there is evidence for intentional design.

One possible argument might then be that, yes God designed all creatures, and the reason some have features which must really be considered design flaws is that He just isn't all that smart. And quoted from my post above ...

Originally posted by Iacchus

As I said the truth exists in everything. However, as I already said, there comes a time when you have to separate the wheat from the chaff. Hmm ... And that time may be arriving shortly. ;)

Max560

25th January 2004, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
I've been around long enough to know how to make up my own mind on the matter, Thanks!

As matter-of-fact this has pretty much been my postition from the getgo.

Well, good for you then.

So let me asky you this, Do you believe that God exists? ... Obviously you don't. ;)

I have seen no evidence that would lead me to the conclusion that God exists. I have seen evidence that other people believe that God exists, but that's about it. Produce this God for me, and I will chat with him and draw my own conclusions.

Naturally, people are resistant to change, and I don't care what side of the fence you're sitting on, be it science or religion.

People do seem to resist change. The only problem is that some people resist it through the use of torture, murder, inquisitions, shunning, etc. In fact, you can still see this sort of thing go on wherever there is no separation of church and state. So, it actually does matter what side of the fence you are on.

And yet you can't just throw out a whole body of knowledge just because of an emerging trend which, is what science was at the time.

Of course you can. If by "throw out" you mean no longer rely on disproven theories, we do that all the time. As far as trying to eliminate old therories, there is actual value in studying them, and trying to understand why people held them to be true. This has the effect of causing us to think about why we believe what we currently believe, and also prepares us to be receptive to new ideas.

Ever hear the expression, "The pendulum swings in the opposite direction?" Be careful what you say, you may wind up eating your own words.

I will never have to worry about evidence making me eat my words. Any credible theory that has emperical evidence to back it up is to be embraced. The only "pendulum" I need to fear is the kind where religious fanatics try to reinstate another Dark Age, where they get to sanction what is true or not, and get to decide what evidence is. So as long as the yahoos are kept at bay, I don't think I will looking out for the pendulum to swing back. Besides, even if it did swing back, the nature of reality would still be independent of any kooky world view imposed by any would be future taliban.

Your mistake is that you've lumped me in the same category with everybody else.

I have made no mistake. I don't actually care what category you are in. I was just trying to answer the question you posed.

Yeah, that would be the easy way out now wouldn't it?

Yes, it would. That's why it's so popular.

And what's to keep me from thrusting the door wide open then? A "non-truth?" Exposure to such truths can be very dangerous, especially when you're not ready for it.

I have no idea what you are actually trying to say here. It sounds like some kind of warning. I will try to duck and cover in the event of a real emergency.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

25th January 2004, 10:48 AM

Iacchus said:
The truth exists in everything, although "relative" from one thing to the next. However, the one true constant we have is the sun. Now, can you see a possible correlation -- and hence "inherent design" -- to a Creator here?
If the sun is a true constant, then we have millions of true constants. The Earth, the stars, grass, Johnny Carson, even pi. Perhaps the Creator is Johnny Carson eating a piece of pi.

~~ Paul

Iacchus

25th January 2004, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

If the sun is a true constant, then we have millions of true constants. The Earth, the stars, grass, Johnny Carson, even pi. Perhaps the Creator is Johnny Carson eating a piece of pi.

~~ Paul Would you deny that you have a father (the sun) and a mother then? (the earth). And where would the rest of these things be without them?

RussDill

25th January 2004, 01:10 PM

RussDill

25th January 2004, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
The base-energy of our existence progresses from its base- indeterminism towards the classical order and law seen within our perception.
One must ask oneself how existence becomes progressively self-ordered, as perceived, without ID.

yes, and people have asked that, for the past few thousand years, maybe you should read up, especially on those explainations that have had very good predictive powers (such as thermodynamics)

RussDill

25th January 2004, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Would you deny that you have a father (the sun) and a mother then? (the earth). And where would the rest of these things be without them?

oooh, ooh, ooh, don't forget the gay lover, the moon.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

25th January 2004, 01:45 PM

Iacchus said:
Would you deny that you have a father (the sun) and a mother then? (the earth). And where would the rest of these things be without them?
The sun and the earth are bit players. The true father is the quantum vacuum and the mother is entropy. The older brother is momentum and the younger sisters are the quarks. The little puppy dog is a black hole.

~~ Paul

Iacchus

25th January 2004, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

oooh, ooh, ooh, don't forget the gay lover, the moon. The moon would probably be sister Artemis who, was the goddess of the moon and, childbearing.

1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. - Revelation 12:1-5 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+12)

pupdog

25th January 2004, 02:37 PM

From the ReligiousTolerance site, they list the following belief types that wouldn't contradict what ID stands for: I agree that ID is not incompatible with the listed religious types, but are any of them actively promoting ID or calling for teaching it in public schools? The most prominent group, led by lawyer Phillip E. Johnson, certainly has a religious agenda, with a more fundamentalist inclination than mainstream Christianity. Johnson has written (1997, "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds") "... we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this... We call our stategy the 'wedge.'"
The Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture prepared a document, "The Wedge Strategy", which begins its introduction with "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built."
They are less extreme than some zealots, in that they are not as concerned with reconciling every word in the Bible with current scientific knowledge, but they are intent on making their viewpoint the prevailing one.

Checkmite

25th January 2004, 04:25 PM

BillyJoe

25th January 2004, 05:46 PM

T'ai Chi,

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Well that is what the ID proponents are trying to see if it is the case [that evolution is blind]. [/B]They are the only ones. To everyone else who cares to look the evidence is overwhelming.

BillyJoe

BillyJoe

25th January 2004, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
Anything that requires all interpretation and no data is not scientific. Or as someone else puts it.....

Science is selecting an interpretation based on the data
Pseudscience is selecting the data based on the interpretation

BillyJoe

Mercutio

25th January 2004, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus

This is all debatable. While I'm afraid I have to stick with my own experience on this one. ;) Ahh....finally...the foundation of your house of cards.

I would humbly suggest looking at a bit of the history of experimental psychology. The problem of the untrustworthiness of "my own experience" is at the heart of the evolution of this science. You trust your experience so much that you refuse even to admit that you are assuming things. Your experience, however, should not be awarded the trust you give it. There are so many simple demonstrations that show your experience to be a poor guide; it is certainly not strong enough to serve as a foundation for a system of belief.

I know you are absolutely certain of your experience. I also know that there is no way that you can be absolutely certain. And that is the crux of the matter. You mean it as certainty, it sounds more like arrogance, and with not much examination, it is shown to be nothing but ignorance. Don't build on it.

BillyJoe

25th January 2004, 06:10 PM

Paul,

You need to stop reading this thread. You are sounding more and more like Iacchus with every post. :D

Iacchus,

Now I understand. You won't come clean because you are afraid we will laugh at you.
Well, I promise I will only laugh with....er....at Paul. :D

BillyJoe

Iacchus

25th January 2004, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by BillyJoe

Or as someone else puts it.....

Science is selecting an interpretation based on the data
Pseudscience is selecting the data based on the interpretation

BillyJoe So what else could we possibly interpret, except for the "data" we receive through our senses? The bottom line is, "everything" is subject to interpretation. Like I said, open eyes, the evidence is all around you.

Iacchus

25th January 2004, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio

Ahh....finally...the foundation of your house of cards.

I would humbly suggest looking at a bit of the history of experimental psychology. The problem of the untrustworthiness of "my own experience" is at the heart of the evolution of this science. You trust your experience so much that you refuse even to admit that you are assuming things. Your experience, however, should not be awarded the trust you give it. There are so many simple demonstrations that show your experience to be a poor guide; it is certainly not strong enough to serve as a foundation for a system of belief.

I know you are absolutely certain of your experience. I also know that there is no way that you can be absolutely certain. And that is the crux of the matter. You mean it as certainty, it sounds more like arrogance, and with not much examination, it is shown to be nothing but ignorance. Don't build on it. You demonstrate nothing but the physicality of the material world which, is only temporal by the way. ;)

So, if we happened to get stuck with our material bodies throughout the rest of Eternity then your theories would great but, unfortunately (for you) it doesn't work that way.

Iacchus

25th January 2004, 06:57 PM

Quoted from the post above ...

Originally posted by Iacchus

Do you know what would be ironic? Is if I could teach everyone on this board how to see The Truth for themselves. And we could all tell James Randi to go take a hike! And we could say, Sorry Randi, the truth is self evident and you'll have to see it for yourself. Now wouldn't that be a blast! :D

Tricky

25th January 2004, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, it still requires a human being to run the tests and "validate" the results.

No. It only requires them to observe, and it doesn't even have to be a human observing. You could have a machine performing the tests and recording the results.

Originally posted by Iacchus
And if there were no sun, would there be DNA?
Is that incredible non-sequitur supposed to pass as deep thinking? If water did not float when it freezes, could life survive on the earth? See, I can make non-sequiturs too!

Originally posted by Iacchus
It always has and always will be "my" interpretion. Just like 1 + 1 = 2. It will always be what my "mind" interprets it to be.
Still no. Your mind is only observing it. It is possible that your mind might make 1+1=3, but that would not be a different interpretation, that would only be a faulty observation.

Originally posted by Iacchus
The truth exists in everything, although "relative" from one thing to the next. However, the one true constant we have is the sun. Now, can you see a possible correlation -- and hence "inherent design" -- to a Creator here?
Got a "hot" flash for you. The sun is not constant. It has all sorts of variability, the most obvious being sunspots. In the longer picture, the sun will eventually run out of hydrogen to fuse and become a dwarf star. And no, I see no correlation whatsoever. I know that you are full of enthusiasm about your "revelation", but I'm afraid it has blinded you to reality.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you know what would be ironic? Is if I could teach everyone on this board how to see The Truth for themselves. And we could all tell James Randi to go take a hike! And we could say, Sorry Randi, the truth is self evident and you'll have to see it for yourself. Now that would be a blast! :D
The "Truth" you teach is simply that everyone decides on "Truth" for themselves, just as you have. This is no great discovery because people have been doing it since they first began to think. The things that you have simply decided are "Truth" are pretty much irrational babbling to most of us here. If I could teach you about critical thinking, you would see this "truth" and you could stop wasting your time pursuing a chimera.

Originally posted by Iacchus
How about all the remote viewing experiments conducted by the CIA? As I understand much of that was successful and, repeatable. Not unless the Nova program that I saw was entirely wrong?Perhaps you could provide some links to that. Nova is a pretty good show, but like all made-for-tv things, it likes to go for the sensational. Maybe your "interpretation" of the conclusions was wrong.:p

If the CIA could do remote viewing, then we would have found the WMDs by now. I am still looking for one single useful, reliable thing that has resulted from paranormal research. Do you know of any?

Originally posted by Iacchus
As I said the truth exists in everything. However, as I already said, there comes a time when you have to separate the wheat from the chaff. Hmm ... And that time may be arriving shortly. ;)
Oh dear. Now you are calling down the apocalypse on us. Hey. It's been done. Hundreds of times. All of them were wrong. But ya know, I have my own system for separating the wheat from the chaff. If you can demonstrate it repeatedly, it's wheat. If you can't, it's chaff. Your philosophy is chaff.

Originally posted by Iacchus

This is all debatable. While I'm afraid I have to stick with my own experience on this one. ;)
I didn't really expect anything different.

BillyJoe

25th January 2004, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
So what else could we possibly interpret, except for the "data" we receive through our senses? The bottom line is, "everything" is subject to interpretation. Like I said, open eyes, the evidence is all around you. Well, I was referring to pseudoscientists who start off with a pet theory and search for data to support their pet theory. Rather than the other way round.

But anyway, yes, all data must come in through the senses (putting aside telepathy for the moment :cool: ). The problems however are multiple and varied.

For example, you could just sit there and passively receive everything on offer. Or you could go searching.
You could be blind to the data that refutes your present interpretation/theory/hypothesis or, on the contrary, you could pointedly search for data which, if found, could refute your theory.

But you are still being obscure and secretive.

You can't just keep giving links to your online book. It would be costly in time and effort to read your book so we need some sort of assurance that it would be worthwhile. After all this time I am still not clear what exactly it is that makes you tick.

Are you the tick of a well oiled engine or the tick of a bomb about to go off?

BillyJoe

Mercutio

25th January 2004, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
You demonstrate nothing but the physicality of the material world which, is only temporal by the way. ;)

So, if we happened to get stuck with our material bodies throughout the rest of Eternity then your theories would great but, unfortunately (for you) it doesn't work that way. What a great response. It fits no matter what you are responding to! Or rather, fits equally well, which is to say it doesn't fit at all. Kinda like ID.

Seriously, re-read the post you pretended to respond to. Do what scientists do every day: challenge your own beliefs. See if there might be another explanation. Hey, maybe you will disagree with what I said. Fine by me--but I would really rather you actually read it and responded to it, rather than what you did.

I think you will find that those of us here who disagree with you--even those who disagree very strongly--actually make the effort to understand what you are saying. Please have the decency to reciprocate.

Iacchus

25th January 2004, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

No. It only requires them to observe, and it doesn't even have to be a human observing. You could have a machine performing the tests and recording the results.What are you saying, nobody's doing the "thinking" then? Then what do we have scientists for?

Also, how did these "machines" come into existence? And what's going to happen when the machines "think" they're better than we are? That would be a grave mistake now wouldn't it?

Is that incredible non-sequitur supposed to pass as deep thinking? If water did not float when it freezes, could life survive on the earth? See, I can make non-sequiturs too!The reason why life exists on this planet -- first and foremost -- is due to its relationship with the sun ... at least in terms of the way people (the lay person) evaluate it in terms of common everday experience.

Still no. Your mind is only observing it. It is possible that your mind might make 1+1=3, but that would not be a different interpretation, that would only be a faulty observation.What are you saying I only have a mind and no feelings by which to evaluate things? Yep, all we need are the machines!

Got a "hot" flash for you. The sun is not constant. It has all sorts of variability, the most obvious being sunspots. In the longer picture, the sun will eventually run out of hydrogen to fuse and become a dwarf star. And no, I see no correlation whatsoever. I know that you are full of enthusiasm about your "revelation", but I'm afraid it has blinded you to reality. Why do you insist in getting stuck in the "physicality" of everything? The sun is a constant in that it's been there day in and out ever since the earth has been here.

The "Truth" you teach is simply that everyone decides on "Truth" for themselves, just as you have. This is no great discovery because people have been doing it since they first began to think. The things that you have simply decided are "Truth" are pretty much irrational babbling to most of us here. If I could teach you about critical thinking, you would see this "truth" and you could stop wasting your time pursuing a chimera.It's not for me to decide what the ultimate truth is, only present to you what I know.

Perhaps you could provide some links to that. Nova is a pretty good show, but like all made-for-tv things, it likes to go for the sensational. Maybe your "interpretation" of the conclusions was wrong.:pIt's strange but I cannot find a link?

If the CIA could do remote viewing, then we would have found the WMDs by now. I am still looking for one single useful, reliable thing that has resulted from paranormal research. Do you know of any?Actually I'm not all that up on what other people are doing with paranormal research. I just brought up the Nova program because it was interesting and I thought easily verifiable. Of course that's not to say there aren't any links out there ...

Oh dear. Now you are calling down the apocalypse on us. Hey. It's been done. Hundreds of times. All of them were wrong. But ya know, I have my own system for separating the wheat from the chaff. If you can demonstrate it repeatedly, it's wheat. If you can't, it's chaff. Your philosophy is chaff.I only need to demonstrate it once.

I didn't really expect anything different. Time factor more than anything else ...

Iacchus

25th January 2004, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio

What a great response. It fits no matter what you are responding to! Or rather, fits equally well, which is to say it doesn't fit at all. Kinda like ID.

Seriously, re-read the post you pretended to respond to. Do what scientists do every day: challenge your own beliefs. See if there might be another explanation. Hey, maybe you will disagree with what I said. Fine by me--but I would really rather you actually read it and responded to it, rather than what you did.

I think you will find that those of us here who disagree with you--even those who disagree very strongly--actually make the effort to understand what you are saying. Please have the decency to reciprocate. Science does nothing but speak to us about that which is temporary. So what? ...

BillyJoe

25th January 2004, 08:55 PM

Iacchus is a computer program scanning input questions and outputting best fit answers.

It's not a very good program.

Iacchus

25th January 2004, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Iacchus is a computer program scanning input questions and outputting best fit answers.

It's not a very good program. One has to consider the audience. ;)

BillyJoe

25th January 2004, 09:44 PM

See what I mean.

Ruby

25th January 2004, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
It has something to do with my discovering the world of spririts exist and, the fact that God's counterpart, Evil, existed as well. While it was something I continued to struggle with for the next twelve or so years.

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.:fg:

Iacchus

25th January 2004, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by Ruby

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.:fg: Hey, that's your 1,260th post ... That's good! ... It means we have a witness!

3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.

6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will. - Revelation 11:3-6 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+11)Will try and respond to your reply later, but it's getting late and I have to go to bed.

RussDill

25th January 2004, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus

It's strange but I cannot find a link?

Actually I'm not all that up on what other people are doing with paranormal research. I just brought up the Nova program because it was interesting and I thought easily verifiable. Of course that's not to say there aren't any links out there ...

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

25th January 2004, 11:46 PM

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.

CWL

26th January 2004, 12:53 AM

As Iacchus kindly invited my to repost the below in this thread (which was originally posted here (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34397&perpage=40&pagenumber=4)) 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.

Iacchus

26th January 2004, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by RussDill

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 Who knows? Maybe the CIA is in on this one? Will have to see if I can furnish the link later.

Of course I don't know why it's not showing up on the PBS/Nova website?

RussDill

26th January 2004, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Who knows? Maybe the CIA is in on this one? Will have to see if I can furnish the link later.

Of course I don't know why it's not showing up on the PBS/Nova website?

Yes Iacchus, it is all a massive CIA conspiracy.

CWL

26th January 2004, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by CWL
As Iacchus kindly invited my to repost the below in this thread (which was originally posted here (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34397&perpage=40&pagenumber=4)) I am now posting away:

Of course, Iacchus does not answer in this thread either. That's right Iacchus, just ignore it and it will go away...

Iacchus

26th January 2004, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

Yes Iacchus, it is all a massive CIA conspiracy. Considering the current "war on terrorism" who knows?

RussDill

26th January 2004, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Considering the current "war on terrorism" who knows?

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.

Zero

26th January 2004, 07:42 PM

"Intelligent Design" is a Christian politicalploy to bypass peer review and pretend that Creationism is backed by scientific evidence. It is basically an attack on reason from the Idiot Brigade, and a lie they tell to unwary Christians.

26th January 2004, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
In other words maybe all God is is the quest for meaning?

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

26th January 2004, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Or the Big Bang is local, just one of many Big Bangs. Or there are many universes and ours is just one. Or other dimensions. Or time is cyclical. Or...
[/b]
Since we can't reach outside our universe, at least as far as we know, those are identical to "the universe just happened".

Or there are several creators. Or there is a creator but it is not a personified thing. Or...

Your point? The creator is QCED?

T'ai Chi

26th January 2004, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by jj

Your point? The creator is QCED?

My point is that there are always more options.

26th January 2004, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

My point is that there are always more options.

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

26th January 2004, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by jj

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.

Even things that supposedly interact with matter are a bit hard to verify: strings, dark matter, etc.

Iacchus

27th January 2004, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by Zero
"Intelligent Design" is a Christian politicalploy to bypass peer review and pretend that Creationism is backed by scientific evidence. It is basically an attack on reason from the Idiot Brigade, and a lie they tell to unwary Christians. 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. :)

RussDill

27th January 2004, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
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

27th January 2004, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by RussDill

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

27th January 2004, 03:17 AM

The Sound of Crickets (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870289029#post1870289029)

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

Tricky

27th January 2004, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by jj
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

27th January 2004, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by CWL
The Sound of Crickets (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870289029#post1870289029)

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

27th January 2004, 05:09 AM

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.
:crazy:

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! :crazy:

CRAZY!

:crazy:

CWL

27th January 2004, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
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

27th January 2004, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
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

27th January 2004, 02:38 PM

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

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
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

27th January 2004, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by CWL
As Iacchus kindly invited my to repost the below in this thread (which was originally posted here (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34397&perpage=40&pagenumber=4)) 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

27th January 2004, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by metropolis_part_one

:crazy: CRAZY! :crazy:

CRAZY!

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

Iacchus

27th January 2004, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by jj

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

27th January 2004, 10:24 PM

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

27th January 2004, 11:32 PM

metropolis_part_one

27th January 2004, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Crazy huh? No doubt ... to the uninitiated and the foolish.

What is the opinion of Pythagoras concerning wild fowl?

:teacher:

BillyJoe

28th January 2004, 02:38 AM

Iacchus is a Post-Modernist Wiccan.

.....or something.

CWL

28th January 2004, 05:30 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
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

28th January 2004, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by CWL

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

28th January 2004, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
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

28th January 2004, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by CWL
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.

metropolis_part_one

28th January 2004, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
We have a soul.

We have a soul.

We have a soul.

We have a soul.

We have a soul.

We have a soul.

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

We have a soul.

My toolbox is "my soul."

:crazy:

Upchurch

28th January 2004, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Did you know that in heaven God is portrayed as the Sun?Did you know that on Teletubbies a baby's face is portayed as the Sun?

**shudder**
freaky-@$$ baby face

edited to add: How exactly did you come by this information anyway?

CWL

28th January 2004, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Did you know that on Teletubbies a baby's face is portayed as the Sun?

Did you know that my hovercraft is full of eels?

Upchurch

28th January 2004, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by CWL
Did you know that my hovercraft is full of eels? Really? So are my pants!

No, I didn't just say that.

tamiO

28th January 2004, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
We have a soul.

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

We have a soul.

My toolbox is "my soul."

Okay. So we have a soul.
Now what do we do?
Does this knowledge help you in any way?
Will it help me?
How will this knowledge change me?
How has it changed you?

CWL

28th January 2004, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Really? So are my pants!

Another line of questioning I won't be pursuing.

Andonyx

28th January 2004, 09:51 AM

I gotta hand it to Russ Dill, I think two months of solid patient logical argument finally caused Lachuus to snap.

It was strange and anti-climactic really, rather like a tape recorder running out of batteries...

What am I reminded of?

...oh yes...

"Daisy...daisy,
give meee yoouuur hoonour truuuueee..."

Also props out to Upchurch, Diogenes, CWL, and Suezoled.

Seriously, what the hell was that?

Tricky

28th January 2004, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Andonyx

What am I reminded of?

...oh yes...

"Daisy...daisy,
give meee yoouuur hoonour truuuueee..."
Actually, it was "give me your answer true". Also the image doesn't work when you remember that HAL was once very smart.

Andonyx

28th January 2004, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Actually, it was "give me your answer true". Also the image doesn't work when you remember that HAL was once very smart.

Yeah I guess my version of the song is slightly more suggestive.

Woops.

RussDill

28th January 2004, 12:42 PM

eh, he hasn't really snapped, he really thinks his response of "We have a soul" (seven times) is insightful. He has been this way the whole time.

Upchurch

28th January 2004, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Also the image doesn't work when you remember that HAL was once very smart.Tricky, are you suggesting Hal isn't so smart now? :D

Iacchus

28th January 2004, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by CWL

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. How can you possibly know anything if you can't see it for yourself? What might that possibly suggest? ... except that the acknowledgment of "truth" is inborn. Therefore you can prove just about anything want in the "external sense," and yet its acknowlegment remains "internal." So, if you want to understand what your soul is, look inside yourself. It's the very thing which reasons things out and draws "its" conclusions -- your identity in other words.

Iacchus

28th January 2004, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by tamiO

Okay. So we have a soul. Which is our identity or, point of reference ... the only point of reference any of us has really.

Now what do we do? Realize that we are capable of understanding the truth, irregardless of what others might have us to believe.

Does this knowledge help you in any way? Yes, it helps to keep me from being overly-influenced by others.

Will it help me?Depends on whether you want to be your own person or not -- or, just follow the crowd.

How will this knowledge change me?It might make you more selective -- and hence "discerning" -- in your dealings with other people.

How has it changed you? Allowed me to live my own life and know myself for who I am, rather than what others might have me believe.

RussDill

28th January 2004, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Which is our identity or, point of reference ... the only point of reference any of us has really.

Hmm...I certainly have an identity without mentioning some eternal being.

Realize that we are capable of understanding the truth, irregardless of what others might have us to believe.

Well, I already knew that.

Yes, it helps to keep me from being overly-influenced by others.

And I am already perfectly capable of doing that.

Depends on whether you want to be your own person or not -- or, just follow the crowd.

I can already be my own person, besides, the crowd says we have a soul...so saying I have one wouldn't exactly be standing out from the herd.

It might make you more selective -- and hence "discerning" -- in your dealings with other people.

I like to view my self as pretty open in my dealings with other people. I think you need to define selective better...but so far, I don't really want this change, I'd rather be perfectly accepting of women in engineering roles.

Allowed me to live my own life and know myself for who I am, rather than what others might have me believe.

So, you were somehow unable to live your own life? I hate to tell you, but there are plenty out here that don't believe in a soul who do live their own life, and know themselves for who they are.

Iacchus

28th January 2004, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

Hmm...I certainly have an identity without mentioning some eternal being.Are you referring to my soul here?

Well, I already knew that. And what tells you this? Is it a personal understanding or, something which can only be garnered through "external means?" In other words how do you know what you know?

And I am already perfectly capable of doing that.Oh, because you understand that you have a "separate" identity?

I can already be my own person, besides, the crowd says we have a soul...so saying I have one wouldn't exactly be standing out from the herd.And yet the crowd (the one I'm referring to) which subscribes to materialism does not.

I like to view my self as pretty open in my dealings with other people. I think you need to define selective better...but so far, I don't really want this change, I'd rather be perfectly accepting of women in engineering roles.Are you suggesting I have a problem with women engineers? No, I don't have a problem with women engineers.

So, you were somehow unable to live your own life? I hate to tell you, but there are plenty out here that don't believe in a soul who do live their own life, and know themselves for who they are. Whether you believe you have one or you don't believe you have one, doesn't change the fact that you have one. So, where do you expect "you" will be when your body dies? ... Obviously not alive and well in the material world, right? That's the part of you which is your soul.

epepke

28th January 2004, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Did you know that on Teletubbies a baby's face is portayed as the Sun?

Well, since everything in Teletubbies resembels The Prisoner, it should really be Leo McKern.

BillyJoe

29th January 2004, 03:24 AM

Iacchus,

Some of us like to get external confirmation about the stuff that congeals out of all the stuff that has gained access to our brains, because there's no telling what sort of nut might have placed some of it there in the first place.

Iacchus, you are relying on your insides to tell you the truth but you do not realize that all that ***** had to get in there somehow. So it's still something exterior to yourself (that part of the world at large that has had an input into your brain) that you're listening to and depending on to learn the truth. How can you trust your brain to subconsciously arrive at truth working only on the stuff that has by chance arrived in your brain.

BillyJoe

Iacchus

29th January 2004, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Iacchus,

Some of us like to get external confirmation about the stuff that congeals out of all the stuff that has gained access to our brains, because there's no telling what sort of nut might have placed some of it there in the first place. Of course. You have to have some way of validating the experience. And yet the validation is an internal process, and remains internal.

Iacchus, you are relying on your insides to tell you the truth but you do not realize that all that ***** had to get in there somehow. So it's still something exterior to yourself (that part of the world at large that has had an input into your brain) that you're listening to and depending on to learn the truth. How can you trust your brain to subconsciously arrive at truth working only on the stuff that has by chance arrived in your brain.

BillyJoe Yes, and it may require a lot of sorting through initially, to get at that truth. But ultimately it's up to you decide.

BillyJoe

30th January 2004, 03:10 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Of course. You have to have some way of validating the experience. And yet the validation is an internal process, and remains internal.

Yes, and it may require a lot of sorting through initially, to get at that truth. But ultimately it's up to you decide. Well now, I could have sworn you said you arrived at your truth intuitively. Do you mean you critically examine everything logically and deductively......and THEN go with your gut feel?

kuroyume0161

27th August 2004, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
This is too good a train of thought not to board.

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.

Well, it's even worse than that. Boiling ID down, they really don't mean super-space-aliens, do they? They mean: "Supernatural being external to universe makes universe in a snap!" (stole that from National Enquirer).

In essence, EVERYTHING was ID'd - including clouds, rocks, hydrogen atoms, quarks, dark matter, EM radiation, G.W.Bush (what a mistake); EVERYTHING. So what is the comparison for an ID'd universe and a non ID'd universe? Last I checked, there isn't any comparable basis from which to make any determinations. For all intensive purposes, waxing philosophical, the universe is just as much designed as happened.

If someone says, well people are definitely designed, ask them about a rock or planet or something else. If there is only one Primal cause, then what designed rocks? Satan! I knew it! :)

Dembski and Behe are idiots... (yes, I've read their books).