[Moderated] What's wrong with this definition of God: maker of heaven and earth and everything? - Page 7

Elizabeth I · 19th February 2009, 06:09 PM

Now, don't everybody go clogging up his PM mailbox demanding your response.

Where do people get these egos? Especially the ones with so much to be modest about?

Hokulele · 19th February 2009, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I

Where do people get these egos?

God made them.

Elizabeth I · 19th February 2009, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I

Where do people get these egos?

Originally Posted by Hokulele

God made them.

bruto · 19th February 2009, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

If you want me to react to you, just pm me, I am dealing now with bruto.

Now, bruto, you agree with me that the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything is possible in your brain.

Suppose we now go forth and search for this God.

Is that a sensible adventure.

And please don't bring in creator, not now, just keep to my concept of God as worded, scil., the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

That is the trouble with atheists, they keep bringing in things which they need not, but should keep to the terms of the thesis or proposition or the concept as stated:

God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Yrreg

I am not sure why you should balk at the word "creator" as a substitute for "maker," but have it your way if it makes you comfortable.

Is searching for such a god a sensible adventure? Yes, I think it is, but with a couple of qualifications.

First of all, if the search is going to be based only on the properties in your definition - that is, on the presumption that what we are looking for is the maker of heaven and earth and everything, then it would see we must start at searching for the answer to the question of whether there is any evidence that "heaven, earth and everything," what most of us are wont to call the universe, can properly be considered to have been "made" by some agency that can be identified.

Second, whether or not the adventure is sensible at this moment depends rather a lot on whether it has already been undertaken.

As it happens, I ~~spend~~ spent a good bit of time and energy in my youth trying to connect with that concept of yours, and the adventure ended with no such connection. I'm older now, and other adventures interest me far more.

Therefore, I suggest that if you are in a mood to undertake the adventure, go right ahead. Report your success if you have any, present your evidence, and make your case. But I am no longer in the mood to chase after God.

NobbyNobbs · 19th February 2009, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

If you want me to react to you, just pm me, I am dealing now with bruto.

Now, bruto, you agree with me that the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything is possible in your brain.

Suppose we now go forth and search for this God.

Is that a sensible adventure.

And please don't bring in creator, not now, just keep to my concept of God as worded, scil., the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

That is the trouble with atheists, they keep bringing in things which they need not, but should keep to the terms of the thesis or proposition or the concept as stated:

God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Yrreg

First of all, if you wish only to converse privately with people, you shouldn't have started a public thread.

Second, before talking about the concept of a maker of earth, heaven and everything, I think you should first clarify one of your terms. "Earth", I think we can all agree on, refers to the planet on which we live. "Everything" is what many other people call "the universe". I don't see, though, where you have mentioned what you mean by "heaven". Do you mean the sky? Outer space? A cloudy place full of angels? it's hard to come up with the concept of the maker of something if we don't know what the something is in the first place.

Finally, just because we can hold a concept in our brain does not make the concept worth searching for in reality. I can hold the concept of a "leprechaun" in my brain. I do not spend my days peeking under toadstools.

Mojo · 20th February 2009, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

And please don't bring in creator, not now, just keep to my concept of God as worded, scil., the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Originally Posted by bruto

Originally Posted by yrreg

...snip...

And please don't bring in creator, not now, just keep to my concept of God as worded, scil., the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

...snip...

I am not sure why you should balk at the word "creator" as a substitute for "maker," but have it your way if it makes you comfortable.

It's an interesting point. The only distinction I've seen people make between the two terms, in this context, seems to be that a "maker" makes stuff out of already existing materials, but a "creator" creates stuff from nothing. Perhaps yrreg tends more towards ID than creationism. His definition leaves the question of the origin of the universe moot though.

six7s · 20th February 2009, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Perhaps yrreg tends more towards ID than creationism. His definition leaves the question of the origin of the universe moot though.

A cTergiversator Proponentsist?

yrreg · 20th February 2009, 02:54 AM

Originally Posted by bruto

Posted by yrreg
If you want me to react to you, just pm me, I am dealing now with bruto.

Now, bruto, you agree with me that the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything is possible in your brain.

Suppose we now go forth and search for this God.

Is that a sensible adventure.

And please don't bring in creator, not now, just keep to my concept of God as worded, scil., the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

That is the trouble with atheists, they keep bringing in things which they need not, but should keep to the terms of the thesis or proposition or the concept as stated:

God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

I am not sure why you should balk at the word "creator" as a substitute for "maker," but have it your way if it makes you comfortable.

Is searching for such a god a sensible adventure? Yes, I think it is, but with a couple of qualifications.

First of all, if the search is going to be based only on the properties in your definition - that is, on the presumption that what we are looking for is the maker of heaven and earth and everything, then it would see we must start at searching for the answer to the question of whether there is any evidence that "heaven, earth and everything," what most of us are wont to call the universe, can properly be considered to have been "made" by some agency that can be identified.

Second, whether or not the adventure is sensible at this moment depends rather a lot on whether it has already been undertaken.

As it happens, I ~~spend~~ spent a good bit of time and energy in my youth trying to connect with that concept of yours, and the adventure ended with no such connection. I'm older now, and other adventures interest me far more.

Therefore, I suggest that if you are in a mood to undertake the adventure, go right ahead. Report your success if you have any, present your evidence, and make your case. But I am no longer in the mood to chase after God.

You say:

As it happens, I ~~spend~~ spent a good bit of time and energy in my youth trying to connect with that concept of yours, and the adventure ended with no such connection. I'm older now, and other adventures interest me far more.

First we have a concept of something, then we go forth and look for it.

You spent a good bit of time and energy in your youth trying to connect with that concept of God, and the adventure ended with no such connection.

You did not find something that corresponds to the concept of maker of heaven and earth and everything.

That is really most disappointing on your part.

In my case I will first render the concept even more simple, telling myself that I am looking for a maker of everything.

A maker of something is easy to locate, for example maker of shoes, maker of cheese, maker of car batteries, one can find all such kinds of makers easily.

A maker of babies also, you are I would like to assume are one with your spouse, I am certainly one with my wife.

A brief reflection should tell you that of all makers of things that we know to have been made, humans are the ones doing all the making which we call artifacts: from spaceships which go into distant space and return to earth, to great gigantic dams to produce energy from water, control water flow, and also irrigate dry plains for agricultural pursuits.

Should I mention other artifacts of humans in all fields of human endeavors which make life more safe, last longer, and more comfortable, and enable humans themselves to come to greater and greater knowledge of the universe?

As regards knowledge you are aware that with man's brain and the instrumentation he has contrived man has multiplied with greater and greater acceleration the quantity and quality and certainty of his knowledge of the universe outside man and also within man himself.

At this point, I ask you, do you know where I am leading to?

Yrreg

joobz · 20th February 2009, 03:49 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

That is really most disappointing on your part.

Please clarify what you mean by this?
Are you saying that it's Bruto's fault for not finding "a maker" of the universe? Or are you saying that you regret the waste of time Bruto placed into a search which yielded nothing?

If the former, how arrogant.
If the later, Bruto did find something. Something closer to the truth as far as we can tell.

Originally Posted by yrreg

A brief reflection should tell you that of all makers of things that we know to have been made, humans are the ones doing all the making which we call artifacts: from spaceships which go into distant space and return to earth, to great gigantic dams to produce energy from water, control water flow, and also irrigate dry plains for agricultural pursuits.

This isn't true.
We see the animal and insect kingdoms make things all the time.
1.) Beaver Dams, Spider webs, Anthills, Bird's nests, Coral Reefs....

We also see random physical processes make things as well
2.) Mountain ranges, Volcanos, Snow Flakes, Tornados, Hurricanes, waterfalls, geods...

So, using your simplification a maker is anything and everything.

Mashuna · 20th February 2009, 04:08 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

At this point, I ask you, do you know where I am leading to?

Up the garden path?

MIKILLINI · 20th February 2009, 04:16 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

At this point, I ask you, do you know where I am leading to?

To a museum of science and history?

Elizabeth I · 20th February 2009, 04:52 AM

OMG, he's breeding?

zooterkin · 20th February 2009, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I

OMG, he's breeding?

Breathing was bad enough...

bruto · 20th February 2009, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

.....
At this point, I ask you, do you know where I am leading to?

Yrreg

I have a pretty good idea, but I don't think you're going to get me there unarmed.

Your examples smack of "argument from design," which has been a dead end and a failure not only for science but for intelligent theology for enough centuries that I, at least, have no desire to revisit it.

I might add too, that your examples above of "making" leave some questions that could lead us back into the quagmire of definition, requiring that we define the terms by which you have defined God.

I have, for example, "made" some babies in the colloquial sense of the word, but it would take a wild and hubristic stretch of the imagination to suggest that I "made" them in any sense that matches the way I have made buildings, furniture, machines, and the like. The part I played in the making of those babies (now adults, by the way), is often referred to with another term, a four letter Anglo-saxon term, beginning with the letter "f," which forum rules prevent me from spelling out. Now there may be some people who would consider this also the best word to describe the effect of God on the universe, of discourse if not of reality, but I suspect that this is not the direction in which you wish to head.

joobz · 20th February 2009, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

At this point, I ask you, do you know where I am leading to?

When our technology advances sufficiently, we will become gods?

Lord Emsworth · 20th February 2009, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

At this point, I ask you, do you know where I am leading to?

No. Do you?

Twiler · 20th February 2009, 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

At this point, I ask you, do you know where I am leading to?

A gingerbread house.

RoboTimbo · 20th February 2009, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

At this point, I ask you, do you know where I am leading to?

That your evidence points to The Flying Spaghetti Monster being the creator?

NobbyNobbs · 20th February 2009, 07:20 AM

You still have not said what you mean by "heaven".

Originally Posted by yrreg

First we have a concept of something, then we go forth and look for it.

No. First we have a concept of something. Then we decide whether it is worth the effort of looking for it based on, among other things, a) the chances of actually finding it, and b) the benefit of finding it compared to the cost of looking for it.

I have a concept of a leprechaun. As to point "b" above, a pot of gold would certainly be worth the trouble of looking for one. However, as to point "a" above, the chances of me finding one are, in my opinion, none, and at best, slim. Therefore, I do not look for leprechauns.

The benefit of finding the maker of everything is questionable. Some will say the knowledge itself is worth it. This is what keeps cosmologists at work. As to point "a" though, based on the evidence I've seen, the chances of actually finding God are so slim to none that it is not worth wasting my life searching.

I'd rather spend my life living.

Macoy · 20th February 2009, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

At this point, I ask you, do you know where I am leading to?

A trough of stagnant water?

yrreg · 20th February 2009, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by bruto

I have a pretty good idea, but I don't think you're going to get me there unarmed.

Your examples smack of "argument from design," which has been a dead end and a failure not only for science but for intelligent theology for enough centuries that I, at least, have no desire to revisit it.

I might add too, that your examples above of "making" leave some questions that could lead us back into the quagmire of definition, requiring that we define the terms by which you have defined God.

I have, for example, "made" some babies in the colloquial sense of the word, but it would take a wild and hubristic stretch of the imagination to suggest that I "made" them in any sense that matches the way I have made buildings, furniture, machines, and the like. The part I played in the making of those babies (now adults, by the way), is often referred to with another term, a four letter Anglo-saxon term, beginning with the letter "f," which forum rules prevent me from spelling out. Now there may be some people who would consider this also the best word to describe the effect of God on the universe, of discourse if not of reality, but I suspect that this is not the direction in which you wish to head.

Will you be inclined at least for review tell people what is the intelligent design argument?

I was not thinking of the intelligent design argument, not that I can directly link what I have in mind with the intelligent design argument.

Now that you bring up the ID argument and state that you find it for yourself and others like you to be meaningless, then for the time being, suppose you tell me what it is?

We are now in the process of eliminating the kinds of makers who do not qualify for the concept of the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

So that readers will know what you understand by the ID argument please just tell us in your own words however many you need what is the intelligent design argument.

I will tell you later what I have in mind for an argument from the existence of men as makers of things and being very clever about being makers.

You will notice that we are now attempting to come to a concurrence on exactly what is the intelligent design argument which you in effect find it meaningless or in other words unacceptable to yourself and others like yourself.

At least we have so far concurred on the possibility of the concept in our brain of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

I will tell you right away that I am not trying to corner you into a haha gotcha situation.

The most useful finding we might come to in this exchange is that we have very clear boundaries of the impasse between you and me, in this matter of the existence of God understood as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Yrreg

Fiona · 20th February 2009, 04:41 PM

Yrreg if you are not proposing intelligent design and Bruto is not what would be the point of outlining it. Why not just get on with whatever you are trying to do?

joobz · 20th February 2009, 04:44 PM

I agree with Fiona. If ID is not yrreg's point, it would only be a derail here.

I think since yrreg has stated that he is not making an intelligent design claim, all discussion on the topic should be removed.

Third Eye Open · 20th February 2009, 04:48 PM

What's wrong with this definition of sugar: 'That which sweetens my coffee'?

bruto · 20th February 2009, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

Will you be inclined at least for review tell people what is the intelligent design argument?

I was not thinking of the intelligent design argument, not that I can directly link what I have in mind with the intelligent design argument.

Now that you bring up the ID argument and state that you find it for yourself and others like you to be meaningless, then for the time being, suppose you tell me what it is?

We are now in the process of eliminating the kinds of makers who do not qualify for the concept of the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

So that readers will know what you understand by the ID argument please just tell us in your own words however many you need what is the intelligent design argument.

I will tell you later what I have in mind for an argument from the existence of men as makers of things and being very clever about being makers.

You will notice that we are now attempting to come to a concurrence on exactly what is the intelligent design argument which you in effect find it meaningless or in other words unacceptable to yourself and others like yourself.

At least we have so far concurred on the possibility of the concept in our brain of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

I will tell you right away that I am not trying to corner you into a haha gotcha situation.

The most useful finding we might come to in this exchange is that we have very clear boundaries of the impasse between you and me, in this matter of the existence of God understood as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Yrreg

I did not quite use the term "intelligent design." I used the term "argument from design." In brief, it is the assertion that since the world shows the appearance of design, there must be a designer, a fallacy in that it skips the premise that the appearance of design necessarily requires a designer. Now of course you could say, technically, that since you have not used the word "design," and have avoided any contention in your definition that God exhibits intelligence or intention, you have not broached the argument from design, but it does sound from what you've said so far, and the analogies you've suggested so far, that you are using the appearance of design (or of manufacture or of making, if you prefer) as an argument for the assumption of a designer (or maker, if you prefer).

Nor did I say the argument was meaningless: only fallacious.

Of course if you have some other argument, and agree that the argument from design is no good, you'd do better to present yours on its own merits, rather than getting sidetracked into something neither of us would care to spend time on.

Macoy · 21st February 2009, 11:30 AM

Actually, yrreg reminds me of god, because I get the same responses from him as I used to get when I used to pray.

Mojo · 21st February 2009, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by Macoy

Actually, yrreg reminds me of god, because I get the same responses from him as I used to get when I used to pray.

God told you to stop tergiversating and wasting bandwidth?

yrreg · 21st February 2009, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by bruto

I did not quite use the term "intelligent design." I used the term "argument from design." In brief, it is the assertion that since the world shows the appearance of design, there must be a designer, a fallacy in that it skips the premise that the appearance of design necessarily requires a designer. Now of course you could say, technically, that since you have not used the word "design," and have avoided any contention in your definition that God exhibits intelligence or intention, you have not broached the argument from design, but it does sound from what you've said so far, and the analogies you've suggested so far, that you are using the appearance of design (or of manufacture or of making, if you prefer) as an argument for the assumption of a designer (or maker, if you prefer).

Nor did I say the argument was meaningless: only fallacious.

Of course if you have some other argument, and agree that the argument from design is no good, you'd do better to present yours on its own merits, rather than getting sidetracked into something neither of us would care to spend time on.

In brief, it is the assertion that since the world shows the appearance of design, there must be a designer, a fallacy in that it skips the premise that the appearance of design necessarily requires a designer.

That could be an instance of impasse between you and me, that you are of the conviction that the world shows the appearance of design, while I am of the human certainty that the world has the reality of design.

Of course if you have some other argument, and agree that the argument from design is no good, you'd do better to present yours on its own merits, rather than getting sidetracked into something neither of us would care to spend time on.

I never say that I find the argument from design to be no good.

And I did not bring up the argument from design, you are the one, wherefore you should not say that I am sidetracking into something neither of us would care to spend time on.

Please for the sake of maintaining a neat and tidy discussion, abstain from bringing in a lot of code words like "appearance of design," on which and by which you have already inured a psychological position in your brain and nerves of negation against God.

Yrreg

Twiler · 21st February 2009, 04:32 PM

I don't think the universe has even the appearance of design.

To state that it does, it is first necessary to define the observable difference between a designed characteristic, and a non-designed characteristic. And I don't think anyone can do that.

So, debating the subject is a nonsense.

Although I concede that other people, who aren't me, may say, 'Hey, look at the universe, it is so totally designed.'

Fiona · 21st February 2009, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

In brief, it is the assertion that since the world shows the appearance of design, there must be a designer, a fallacy in that it skips the premise that the appearance of design necessarily requires a designer.

That could be an instance of impasse between you and me, that you are of the conviction that the world shows the appearance of design, while I am of the human certainty that the world has the reality of design.

Of course if you have some other argument, and agree that the argument from design is no good, you'd do better to present yours on its own merits, rather than getting sidetracked into something neither of us would care to spend time on.

I never say that I find the argument from design to be no good.

And I did not bring up the argument from design, you are the one, wherefore you should not say that I am sidetracking into something neither of us would care to spend time on.

Please for the sake of maintaining a neat and tidy discussion, abstain from bringing in a lot of code words like "appearance of design," on which and by which you have already inured a psychological position in your brain and nerves of negation against God.

Yrreg

What???

X · 21st February 2009, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

Please for the sake of maintaining a neat and tidy discussion, abstain from bringing in a lot of code words like "appearance of design," on which and by which you have already inured a psychological position in your brain and nerves of negation against God.

This sentence should be taken out back and shot. It's a traitor to the English language!

Honestly, Yrreg, what are you on about?

Mojo · 21st February 2009, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

And I did not bring up the argument from design...

Please could you explain why you consider communication satellites and the Moon to be evidence for the existence of God?

yrreg · 21st February 2009, 05:01 PM

Start reading from the line below, bypassing the long citation:
[ Start here, if you are short of time. ]

------------------------------

Originally Posted by yrreg

Posted by bruto
Posted by yrreg
If you want me to react to you, just pm me, I am dealing now with bruto.

Now, bruto, you agree with me that the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything is possible in your brain.

Suppose we now go forth and search for this God.

Is that a sensible adventure.

And please don't bring in creator, not now, just keep to my concept of God as worded, scil., the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

That is the trouble with atheists, they keep bringing in things which they need not, but should keep to the terms of the thesis or proposition or the concept as stated:

God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.
I am not sure why you should balk at the word "creator" as a substitute for "maker," but have it your way if it makes you comfortable.

Is searching for such a god a sensible adventure? Yes, I think it is, but with a couple of qualifications.

First of all, if the search is going to be based only on the properties in your definition - that is, on the presumption that what we are looking for is the maker of heaven and earth and everything, then it would see we must start at searching for the answer to the question of whether there is any evidence that "heaven, earth and everything," what most of us are wont to call the universe, can properly be considered to have been "made" by some agency that can be identified.

Second, whether or not the adventure is sensible at this moment depends rather a lot on whether it has already been undertaken.

As it happens, I spend spent a good bit of time and energy in my youth trying to connect with that concept of yours, and the adventure ended with no such connection. I'm older now, and other adventures interest me far more.

Therefore, I suggest that if you are in a mood to undertake the adventure, go right ahead. Report your success if you have any, present your evidence, and make your case. But I am no longer in the mood to chase after God.

You say:

As it happens, I ~~spend~~ spent a good bit of time and energy in my youth trying to connect with that concept of yours, and the adventure ended with no such connection. I'm older now, and other adventures interest me far more.

First we have a concept of something, then we go forth and look for it.

You spent a good bit of time and energy in your youth trying to connect with that concept of God, and the adventure ended with no such connection.

You did not find something that corresponds to the concept of maker of heaven and earth and everything.

That is really most disappointing on your part.

In my case I will first render the concept even more simple, telling myself that I am looking for a maker of everything.

A maker of something is easy to locate, for example maker of shoes, maker of cheese, maker of car batteries, one can find all such kinds of makers easily.

A maker of babies also, you are I would like to assume are one with your spouse, I am certainly one with my wife.

A brief reflection should tell you that of all makers of things that we know to have been made, humans are the ones doing all the making which we call artifacts: from spaceships which go into distant space and return to earth, to great gigantic dams to produce energy from water, control water flow, and also irrigate dry plains for agricultural pursuits.

Should I mention other artifacts of humans in all fields of human endeavors which make life more safe, last longer, and more comfortable, and enable humans themselves to come to greater and greater knowledge of the universe?

As regards knowledge you are aware that with man's brain and the instrumentation he has contrived man has multiplied with greater and greater acceleration the quantity and quality and certainty of his knowledge of the universe outside man and also within man himself.

At this point, I ask you, do you know where I am leading to?

Yrreg

[ Start here, if you are short of time. ]

At this point, I ask you, do you know where I am leading to?

But you jumped right away to the argument from design by which you betray your prejudgment that design in the world is only an appearance.

Is that your conviction?

In which case as I have said already, for me the design in the world is a reality of which I have certainty about insofar as I have a brain that works as it should work.

That is an instance of impasse between you and me, and are you going to continue bringing up everything that you do not like to be appearances?

Because I cannot see how we can have any productive discussion when one party you are of the conviction that everything is appearance.

I was asking you whether you got what I was leading to, but you did not get what I was leading to.

Let that pass for the present.

Now we do have some very important matter to settle.

For you the design in the world is appearance, for me it is reality.

What other things in the world for you is appearance aside from the design in the world.

Or is everything that is design in the world for is you appearance, like the design of the moon's rotation and orbit?

And also the conception of a baby if you ever made a baby with a person of the opposite sex, that is not design but at most an appearance of design -- because the design in the world is appearance only.

About what I am leading to, I guess it is now on the shelf unless and until we can get to know what are for you appearances in the world and what are not.

Yrreg

joobz · 21st February 2009, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

I was not thinking of the intelligent design argument, not that I can directly link what I have in mind with the intelligent design argument.

Originally Posted by yrreg

That could be an instance of impasse between you and me, that you are of the conviction that the world shows the appearance of design, while I am of the human certainty that the world has the reality of design.

Egon: There's one important thing I forgot to tell you.
Peter: What?
Egon: Don't cross the logic streams.
Peter: Why?
Egon: It would be bad.
Peter: I'm Fuzzy on this whole good bad thing. What do you mean, "bad?"
Egon: Try to imagine all of rationality as you know it stopping instantaneously and every irony meter in your universe exploding at the speed of light.
Joobz: Total Argument Reversal
Peter: Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip.

Fiona · 21st February 2009, 05:15 PM

Well, Joobz, I don't think there is any need to get excited: it is all perfectly clear. The world is designed: just not intelligently. Relax

wollery · 21st February 2009, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by Fiona

Well, Joobz, I don't think there is any need to get excited: it is all perfectly clear. The world is designed: just not intelligently. Relax

Same applies to Yrreg's argument.

bruto · 21st February 2009, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

In brief, it is the assertion that since the world shows the appearance of design, there must be a designer, a fallacy in that it skips the premise that the appearance of design necessarily requires a designer.

That could be an instance of impasse between you and me, that you are of the conviction that the world shows the appearance of design, while I am of the human certainty that the world has the reality of design.

Yes indeed, I believe that is an impasse, because I do not share your certainty and if your certainty is not inferred from the appearance of design, then I don't know what it could be based on other than the authority of holy writ or divine inspiration. You certainly were not present at the creation. I suspect that further discussion is going to turn on your idiosyncratic take on empiricism

Quote:

Of course if you have some other argument, and agree that the argument from design is no good, you'd do better to present yours on its own merits, rather than getting sidetracked into something neither of us would care to spend time on.

I never say that I find the argument from design to be no good.

And I did not bring up the argument from design, you are the one, wherefore you should not say that I am sidetracking into something neither of us would care to spend time on.

Please for the sake of maintaining a neat and tidy discussion, abstain from bringing in a lot of code words like "appearance of design," on which and by which you have already inured a psychological position in your brain and nerves of negation against God.

Yrreg

I'm not even quite sure what that last sentence of yours means, and suggest a vocabulary check. But "appearance of design" is not code, even if it is often used by those who assert that the world has no designer. It simply means that to many people the world shows a kind of order and organization that we associate, rightly or wrongly, with intentional design.

yrreg · 22nd February 2009, 01:20 AM

Originally Posted by bruto

Posted by bruto
In brief, it is the assertion that since the world shows the appearance of design, there must be a designer, a fallacy in that it skips the premise that the appearance of design necessarily requires a designer.

Posted by Yrreg
That could be an instance of impasse between you and me, that you are of the conviction that the world shows the appearance of design, while I am of the human certainty that the world has the reality of design.

Yes indeed, I believe that is an impasse, because I do not share your certainty and if your certainty is not inferred from the appearance of design, then I don't know what it could be based on other than the authority of holy writ or divine inspiration. You certainly were not present at the creation. I suspect that further discussion is going to turn on your idiosyncratic take on empiricism I'm not even quite sure what that last sentence of yours means, and suggest a vocabulary check. But "appearance of design" is not code, even if it is often used by those who assert that the world has no designer. It simply means that to many people the world shows a kind of order and organization that we associate, rightly or wrongly, with intentional design.

Do you mean by appearance of design as opposed to reality of design?

Take my example of the moon's rotation and orbit and the production of a baby by you, if you ever produced a baby with a person of the opposite sex, they are two examples from me of the certainty of the reality -- as opposed to appearances -- of design in the world.

For you those two examples are not of the real world but of the world of appearance.

So that there is no reality outside of the appearance in both instances of the moon's motion of rotation and orbit and the event of conception and birth of a human baby?

Yrreg

ferd burfle · 22nd February 2009, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

...if you ever produced a baby with a person of the opposite sex...

Pedantry, thy name is yrreg

Ferd

Fiona · 22nd February 2009, 03:39 AM

You are merely trading on the ambiguities in the way the word design is used, Yrreg.

Design:

I.
1. A plan or scheme conceived in the mind of something to be done: the preliminary conception of an idea that is to be carried into effect by action: a project.

2. Purpose, aim, intention

3. The thing aimed at

4. Contrivance in accordance with a preconceived plan: adaptation of means to ends; prearranged purpose; as,the argument from d.

5. In a bad sense: Crafty contrivance; and instance of this

II.1
a. A preliminary sketch for a work of art; the plan of a building, or part of it, or of a piece of decorative work, after which the structure or texture is to be completed; a delineation or pattern

b. The combination of details which go to make up a work of art; artistic idea as executed; a piece of decorative work, an artistic device

c. The art of picturesque delineation and construction

II.2

a.To plan, plan out

b.To purpose,intend

c. To have in view

d. To intend to go or start

III.1

a. To sketch

b. To trace the outline of, delineate

c. To make the preliminary sketch of; to make the plans and drawings necessary for the constuction of

III.2

To plan and execute; to fashion with artistic skill or decorative device

III.3

a.To draw, sketch

b. To form or fashion a work of art; less widely, to devise artistic patterns

(OED)

When you and and your wife decide to have a baby you "design" to do so in the first sense outlined above: that is, it is your intention/ purpose/aim to have a child. This use of the word "design" is perfectly respectable but it is a little archaic and is seldom used nowadays. People do not go about saying things like "if milk be thy design; with plenteous hand bring Clover grass"; or "he had no design on your pocket". Nor do they say "it is our design to have a baby". What they actually say is things like " we are trying for a baby"; or "we want to have a baby"; or even " we intend to have a baby"

The word design is now much more commonly used in the other senses. It carries the implication that the designer makes the plan for a particular completed work and that work will look like the plan when it is done. There is no way that prospective parents do anything like that. This use of the word design, applied to the making of babies, is so far from what happens as to be laughable.

The incidence of spontaneous abortion runs at about 16%, I think. Is that what prospective parents "design"? Many are born with disabilities and defects. Is that what they "design"? A lot of prospective parents cannot conceive at all. Where is the "design" in that? Before modern medicine a lot of women died in childbirth: is that part of what prospective parents "design"?.

These questions are easily answered: there would be no amniocentesis tests or moves to invent ways to choose the characteristics of any children born if what we get was a product of parental design at present.

Or is it your contention that some other entity does the designing? If so then why did you bring the prospective parents into it in discussing "design"? And while we are on the subject, why is it this designer is so freaking useless as to produce all the problems outlined above? I would sack an architect if 16% of his buildings fell down.

I do not know if your conflation is because your english is limited or because you deliberately obfuscate. But if we are to proceed you need to separate the different meanings of this word: and then, hopefully say which one you are using and also whether you do or don't believe that the world shows evidence of whichever sense of design you choose to adopt

19th February 2009, 06:09 PM	#241
Elizabeth I Olympic Equestrian Wannabe Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Defending the Alamo Posts: 9,255	Now, don't everybody go clogging up his PM mailbox demanding your response. Where do people get these egos? Especially the ones with so much to be modest about?
	__________________ • There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man. - Winston Churchill • Never wrestle with a pig - you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it. • My blog: Pardon me, may I ask...

19th February 2009, 06:12 PM	#242
Hokulele Official Nemesis Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Trying to decide whether to set defenses against an army, or against mole rats. Posts: 27,267	Originally Posted by Elizabeth I Where do people get these egos? God made them.
	__________________ Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" Some person: "Why did you shoot that?" Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" - Tragic Monkey

19th February 2009, 06:18 PM	#243
Elizabeth I Olympic Equestrian Wannabe Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Defending the Alamo Posts: 9,255	Quote: Originally Posted by Elizabeth I Where do people get these egos? Originally Posted by Hokulele God made them.
	__________________ • There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man. - Winston Churchill • Never wrestle with a pig - you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it. • My blog: Pardon me, may I ask...

19th February 2009, 06:25 PM	#244
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,181	Originally Posted by yrreg If you want me to react to you, just pm me, I am dealing now with bruto. Now, bruto, you agree with me that the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything is possible in your brain. Suppose we now go forth and search for this God. Is that a sensible adventure. And please don't bring in creator, not now, just keep to my concept of God as worded, scil., the maker of heaven and earth and everything. That is the trouble with atheists, they keep bringing in things which they need not, but should keep to the terms of the thesis or proposition or the concept as stated: God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything. Yrreg I am not sure why you should balk at the word "creator" as a substitute for "maker," but have it your way if it makes you comfortable. Is searching for such a god a sensible adventure? Yes, I think it is, but with a couple of qualifications. First of all, if the search is going to be based only on the properties in your definition - that is, on the presumption that what we are looking for is the maker of heaven and earth and everything, then it would see we must start at searching for the answer to the question of whether there is any evidence that "heaven, earth and everything," what most of us are wont to call the universe, can properly be considered to have been "made" by some agency that can be identified. Second, whether or not the adventure is sensible at this moment depends rather a lot on whether it has already been undertaken. As it happens, I ~~spend~~ spent a good bit of time and energy in my youth trying to connect with that concept of yours, and the adventure ended with no such connection. I'm older now, and other adventures interest me far more. Therefore, I suggest that if you are in a mood to undertake the adventure, go right ahead. Report your success if you have any, present your evidence, and make your case. But I am no longer in the mood to chase after God.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry) Last edited by bruto; 19th February 2009 at 06:34 PM. Reason: type

19th February 2009, 10:04 PM	#245
NobbyNobbs Gazerbeam's Protege Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The Mended Drum Posts: 5,630	Originally Posted by yrreg If you want me to react to you, just pm me, I am dealing now with bruto. Now, bruto, you agree with me that the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything is possible in your brain. Suppose we now go forth and search for this God. Is that a sensible adventure. And please don't bring in creator, not now, just keep to my concept of God as worded, scil., the maker of heaven and earth and everything. That is the trouble with atheists, they keep bringing in things which they need not, but should keep to the terms of the thesis or proposition or the concept as stated: God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything. Yrreg First of all, if you wish only to converse privately with people, you shouldn't have started a public thread. Second, before talking about the concept of a maker of earth, heaven and everything, I think you should first clarify one of your terms. "Earth", I think we can all agree on, refers to the planet on which we live. "Everything" is what many other people call "the universe". I don't see, though, where you have mentioned what you mean by "heaven". Do you mean the sky? Outer space? A cloudy place full of angels? it's hard to come up with the concept of the maker of something if we don't know what the something is in the first place. Finally, just because we can hold a concept in our brain does not make the concept worth searching for in reality. I can hold the concept of a "leprechaun" in my brain. I do not spend my days peeking under toadstools.
	__________________ I wish someone would find something I wrote on this board to be sig-worthy, thereby effectively granting me immortality.--Antiquehunter The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted years on earth the time spent eating butterscotch pudding. AMERICA! NUMBER 1 IN PARTICLE PHYSICS SINCE JULY 4TH, 1776!!! --SusanConstant

20th February 2009, 12:20 AM	#246
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,089	Originally Posted by yrreg And please don't bring in creator, not now, just keep to my concept of God as worded, scil., the maker of heaven and earth and everything. Originally Posted by bruto Originally Posted by yrreg ...snip... And please don't bring in creator, not now, just keep to my concept of God as worded, scil., the maker of heaven and earth and everything. ...snip... I am not sure why you should balk at the word "creator" as a substitute for "maker," but have it your way if it makes you comfortable. It's an interesting point. The only distinction I've seen people make between the two terms, in this context, seems to be that a "maker" makes stuff out of already existing materials, but a "creator" creates stuff from nothing. Perhaps yrreg tends more towards ID than creationism. His definition leaves the question of the origin of the universe moot though.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky Last edited by Mojo; 20th February 2009 at 12:21 AM.

20th February 2009, 12:37 AM	#247
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 8,710	Originally Posted by Mojo Perhaps yrreg tends more towards ID than creationism. His definition leaves the question of the origin of the universe moot though. A cTergiversator Proponentsist?
	__________________ Evolution and the rest of reality fascinates the be-jeebus out of me!

20th February 2009, 02:54 AM	#248
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	First we have a concept of something, then we go forth and look for it. Originally Posted by bruto Posted by yrreg If you want me to react to you, just pm me, I am dealing now with bruto. Now, bruto, you agree with me that the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything is possible in your brain. Suppose we now go forth and search for this God. Is that a sensible adventure. And please don't bring in creator, not now, just keep to my concept of God as worded, scil., the maker of heaven and earth and everything. That is the trouble with atheists, they keep bringing in things which they need not, but should keep to the terms of the thesis or proposition or the concept as stated: God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything. I am not sure why you should balk at the word "creator" as a substitute for "maker," but have it your way if it makes you comfortable. Is searching for such a god a sensible adventure? Yes, I think it is, but with a couple of qualifications. First of all, if the search is going to be based only on the properties in your definition - that is, on the presumption that what we are looking for is the maker of heaven and earth and everything, then it would see we must start at searching for the answer to the question of whether there is any evidence that "heaven, earth and everything," what most of us are wont to call the universe, can properly be considered to have been "made" by some agency that can be identified. Second, whether or not the adventure is sensible at this moment depends rather a lot on whether it has already been undertaken. As it happens, I ~~spend~~ spent a good bit of time and energy in my youth trying to connect with that concept of yours, and the adventure ended with no such connection. I'm older now, and other adventures interest me far more. Therefore, I suggest that if you are in a mood to undertake the adventure, go right ahead. Report your success if you have any, present your evidence, and make your case. But I am no longer in the mood to chase after God. You say: As it happens, I ~~spend~~ spent a good bit of time and energy in my youth trying to connect with that concept of yours, and the adventure ended with no such connection. I'm older now, and other adventures interest me far more. First we have a concept of something, then we go forth and look for it. You spent a good bit of time and energy in your youth trying to connect with that concept of God, and the adventure ended with no such connection. You did not find something that corresponds to the concept of maker of heaven and earth and everything. That is really most disappointing on your part. In my case I will first render the concept even more simple, telling myself that I am looking for a maker of everything. A maker of something is easy to locate, for example maker of shoes, maker of cheese, maker of car batteries, one can find all such kinds of makers easily. A maker of babies also, you are I would like to assume are one with your spouse, I am certainly one with my wife. A brief reflection should tell you that of all makers of things that we know to have been made, humans are the ones doing all the making which we call artifacts: from spaceships which go into distant space and return to earth, to great gigantic dams to produce energy from water, control water flow, and also irrigate dry plains for agricultural pursuits. Should I mention other artifacts of humans in all fields of human endeavors which make life more safe, last longer, and more comfortable, and enable humans themselves to come to greater and greater knowledge of the universe? As regards knowledge you are aware that with man's brain and the instrumentation he has contrived man has multiplied with greater and greater acceleration the quantity and quality and certainty of his knowledge of the universe outside man and also within man himself. At this point, I ask you, do you know where I am leading to? Yrreg
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

20th February 2009, 03:49 AM	#249
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,496	Originally Posted by yrreg That is really most disappointing on your part. Please clarify what you mean by this? Are you saying that it's Bruto's fault for not finding "a maker" of the universe? Or are you saying that you regret the waste of time Bruto placed into a search which yielded nothing? If the former, how arrogant. If the later, Bruto did find something. Something closer to the truth as far as we can tell. Originally Posted by yrreg A brief reflection should tell you that of all makers of things that we know to have been made, humans are the ones doing all the making which we call artifacts: from spaceships which go into distant space and return to earth, to great gigantic dams to produce energy from water, control water flow, and also irrigate dry plains for agricultural pursuits. This isn't true. We see the animal and insect kingdoms make things all the time. 1.) Beaver Dams, Spider webs, Anthills, Bird's nests, Coral Reefs.... We also see random physical processes make things as well 2.) Mountain ranges, Volcanos, Snow Flakes, Tornados, Hurricanes, waterfalls, geods... So, using your simplification a maker is anything and everything.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

20th February 2009, 04:08 AM	#250
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Welsh Wales Posts: 6,579	Originally Posted by yrreg At this point, I ask you, do you know where I am leading to? Up the garden path?
	__________________ GENERATION 10: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and put in a random number. Anti-social experiment.

20th February 2009, 04:16 AM	#251
MIKILLINI Incromulent Logic Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Illini State Posts: 2,876	Originally Posted by yrreg At this point, I ask you, do you know where I am leading to? To a museum of science and history?
	__________________ Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense. The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo Sylvia Browne is not a medium, she's a mediocre. Last edited by MIKILLINI; 20th February 2009 at 04:18 AM.

20th February 2009, 04:52 AM	#252
Elizabeth I Olympic Equestrian Wannabe Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Defending the Alamo Posts: 9,255	OMG, he's breeding?
	__________________ • There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man. - Winston Churchill • Never wrestle with a pig - you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it. • My blog: Pardon me, may I ask...

20th February 2009, 05:31 AM	#253
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 24,580	Originally Posted by Elizabeth I OMG, he's breeding? Breathing was bad enough...
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

20th February 2009, 05:33 AM	#254
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,181	Originally Posted by yrreg ..... At this point, I ask you, do you know where I am leading to? Yrreg I have a pretty good idea, but I don't think you're going to get me there unarmed. Your examples smack of "argument from design," which has been a dead end and a failure not only for science but for intelligent theology for enough centuries that I, at least, have no desire to revisit it. I might add too, that your examples above of "making" leave some questions that could lead us back into the quagmire of definition, requiring that we define the terms by which you have defined God. I have, for example, "made" some babies in the colloquial sense of the word, but it would take a wild and hubristic stretch of the imagination to suggest that I "made" them in any sense that matches the way I have made buildings, furniture, machines, and the like. The part I played in the making of those babies (now adults, by the way), is often referred to with another term, a four letter Anglo-saxon term, beginning with the letter "f," which forum rules prevent me from spelling out. Now there may be some people who would consider this also the best word to describe the effect of God on the universe, of discourse if not of reality, but I suspect that this is not the direction in which you wish to head.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

20th February 2009, 05:36 AM	#255
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,496	Originally Posted by yrreg At this point, I ask you, do you know where I am leading to? When our technology advances sufficiently, we will become gods?
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

20th February 2009, 06:28 AM	#256
Lord Emsworth Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Through the Cables and the Underground ... Posts: 2,827	Originally Posted by yrreg At this point, I ask you, do you know where I am leading to? No. Do you?

20th February 2009, 06:59 AM	#257
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494	Originally Posted by yrreg At this point, I ask you, do you know where I am leading to? A gingerbread house.
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494

20th February 2009, 07:09 AM	#258
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Prosperity, AZ Posts: 21,852	Originally Posted by yrreg At this point, I ask you, do you know where I am leading to? That your evidence points to The Flying Spaghetti Monster being the creator?

20th February 2009, 07:20 AM	#259
NobbyNobbs Gazerbeam's Protege Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The Mended Drum Posts: 5,630	You still have not said what you mean by "heaven". Originally Posted by yrreg First we have a concept of something, then we go forth and look for it. No. First we have a concept of something. Then we decide whether it is worth the effort of looking for it based on, among other things, a) the chances of actually finding it, and b) the benefit of finding it compared to the cost of looking for it. I have a concept of a leprechaun. As to point "b" above, a pot of gold would certainly be worth the trouble of looking for one. However, as to point "a" above, the chances of me finding one are, in my opinion, none, and at best, slim. Therefore, I do not look for leprechauns. The benefit of finding the maker of everything is questionable. Some will say the knowledge itself is worth it. This is what keeps cosmologists at work. As to point "a" though, based on the evidence I've seen, the chances of actually finding God are so slim to none that it is not worth wasting my life searching. I'd rather spend my life living.
	__________________ I wish someone would find something I wrote on this board to be sig-worthy, thereby effectively granting me immortality.--Antiquehunter The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted years on earth the time spent eating butterscotch pudding. AMERICA! NUMBER 1 IN PARTICLE PHYSICS SINCE JULY 4TH, 1776!!! --SusanConstant

20th February 2009, 07:23 AM	#260
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	Originally Posted by yrreg At this point, I ask you, do you know where I am leading to? A trough of stagnant water?
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own

20th February 2009, 04:34 PM	#261
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	Will you be inclined at least for review tell people what is the intelligent... Originally Posted by bruto I have a pretty good idea, but I don't think you're going to get me there unarmed. Your examples smack of "argument from design," which has been a dead end and a failure not only for science but for intelligent theology for enough centuries that I, at least, have no desire to revisit it. I might add too, that your examples above of "making" leave some questions that could lead us back into the quagmire of definition, requiring that we define the terms by which you have defined God. I have, for example, "made" some babies in the colloquial sense of the word, but it would take a wild and hubristic stretch of the imagination to suggest that I "made" them in any sense that matches the way I have made buildings, furniture, machines, and the like. The part I played in the making of those babies (now adults, by the way), is often referred to with another term, a four letter Anglo-saxon term, beginning with the letter "f," which forum rules prevent me from spelling out. Now there may be some people who would consider this also the best word to describe the effect of God on the universe, of discourse if not of reality, but I suspect that this is not the direction in which you wish to head. Will you be inclined at least for review tell people what is the intelligent design argument? I was not thinking of the intelligent design argument, not that I can directly link what I have in mind with the intelligent design argument. Now that you bring up the ID argument and state that you find it for yourself and others like you to be meaningless, then for the time being, suppose you tell me what it is? We are now in the process of eliminating the kinds of makers who do not qualify for the concept of the maker of heaven and earth and everything. So that readers will know what you understand by the ID argument please just tell us in your own words however many you need what is the intelligent design argument. I will tell you later what I have in mind for an argument from the existence of men as makers of things and being very clever about being makers. You will notice that we are now attempting to come to a concurrence on exactly what is the intelligent design argument which you in effect find it meaningless or in other words unacceptable to yourself and others like yourself. At least we have so far concurred on the possibility of the concept in our brain of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything. I will tell you right away that I am not trying to corner you into a haha gotcha situation. The most useful finding we might come to in this exchange is that we have very clear boundaries of the impasse between you and me, in this matter of the existence of God understood as the maker of heaven and earth and everything. Yrreg
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

20th February 2009, 04:41 PM	#262
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238	Yrreg if you are not proposing intelligent design and Bruto is not what would be the point of outlining it. Why not just get on with whatever you are trying to do?
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238

20th February 2009, 04:44 PM	#263
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,496	I agree with Fiona. If ID is not yrreg's point, it would only be a derail here. I think since yrreg has stated that he is not making an intelligent design claim, all discussion on the topic should be removed.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

20th February 2009, 04:48 PM	#264
Third Eye Open Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Washington state, USA Posts: 1,402	What's wrong with this definition of sugar: 'That which sweetens my coffee'?
	__________________ "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."- Friedrich von Schiller "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson "Let all your troubles go, cling to the joy of living..." - Heavenly

20th February 2009, 06:32 PM	#265
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,181	Originally Posted by yrreg Will you be inclined at least for review tell people what is the intelligent design argument? I was not thinking of the intelligent design argument, not that I can directly link what I have in mind with the intelligent design argument. Now that you bring up the ID argument and state that you find it for yourself and others like you to be meaningless, then for the time being, suppose you tell me what it is? We are now in the process of eliminating the kinds of makers who do not qualify for the concept of the maker of heaven and earth and everything. So that readers will know what you understand by the ID argument please just tell us in your own words however many you need what is the intelligent design argument. I will tell you later what I have in mind for an argument from the existence of men as makers of things and being very clever about being makers. You will notice that we are now attempting to come to a concurrence on exactly what is the intelligent design argument which you in effect find it meaningless or in other words unacceptable to yourself and others like yourself. At least we have so far concurred on the possibility of the concept in our brain of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything. I will tell you right away that I am not trying to corner you into a haha gotcha situation. The most useful finding we might come to in this exchange is that we have very clear boundaries of the impasse between you and me, in this matter of the existence of God understood as the maker of heaven and earth and everything. Yrreg I did not quite use the term "intelligent design." I used the term "argument from design." In brief, it is the assertion that since the world shows the appearance of design, there must be a designer, a fallacy in that it skips the premise that the appearance of design necessarily requires a designer. Now of course you could say, technically, that since you have not used the word "design," and have avoided any contention in your definition that God exhibits intelligence or intention, you have not broached the argument from design, but it does sound from what you've said so far, and the analogies you've suggested so far, that you are using the appearance of design (or of manufacture or of making, if you prefer) as an argument for the assumption of a designer (or maker, if you prefer). Nor did I say the argument was meaningless: only fallacious. Of course if you have some other argument, and agree that the argument from design is no good, you'd do better to present yours on its own merits, rather than getting sidetracked into something neither of us would care to spend time on.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

21st February 2009, 11:30 AM	#266
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	Actually, yrreg reminds me of god, because I get the same responses from him as I used to get when I used to pray.
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own

21st February 2009, 04:17 PM	#267
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,089	Originally Posted by Macoy Actually, yrreg reminds me of god, because I get the same responses from him as I used to get when I used to pray. God told you to stop tergiversating and wasting bandwidth?
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

21st February 2009, 04:23 PM	#268
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	On appearance of design, and sidetracking. Originally Posted by bruto I did not quite use the term "intelligent design." I used the term "argument from design." In brief, it is the assertion that since the world shows the appearance of design, there must be a designer, a fallacy in that it skips the premise that the appearance of design necessarily requires a designer. Now of course you could say, technically, that since you have not used the word "design," and have avoided any contention in your definition that God exhibits intelligence or intention, you have not broached the argument from design, but it does sound from what you've said so far, and the analogies you've suggested so far, that you are using the appearance of design (or of manufacture or of making, if you prefer) as an argument for the assumption of a designer (or maker, if you prefer). Nor did I say the argument was meaningless: only fallacious. Of course if you have some other argument, and agree that the argument from design is no good, you'd do better to present yours on its own merits, rather than getting sidetracked into something neither of us would care to spend time on. In brief, it is the assertion that since the world shows the appearance of design, there must be a designer, a fallacy in that it skips the premise that the appearance of design necessarily requires a designer. That could be an instance of impasse between you and me, that you are of the conviction that the world shows the appearance of design, while I am of the human certainty that the world has the reality of design. Of course if you have some other argument, and agree that the argument from design is no good, you'd do better to present yours on its own merits, rather than getting sidetracked into something neither of us would care to spend time on. I never say that I find the argument from design to be no good. And I did not bring up the argument from design, you are the one, wherefore you should not say that I am sidetracking into something neither of us would care to spend time on. Please for the sake of maintaining a neat and tidy discussion, abstain from bringing in a lot of code words like "appearance of design," on which and by which you have already inured a psychological position in your brain and nerves of negation against God. Yrreg
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

21st February 2009, 04:32 PM	#269
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494	I don't think the universe has even the appearance of design. To state that it does, it is first necessary to define the observable difference between a designed characteristic, and a non-designed characteristic. And I don't think anyone can do that. So, debating the subject is a nonsense. Although I concede that other people, who aren't me, may say, 'Hey, look at the universe, it is so totally designed.'
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494

21st February 2009, 04:34 PM	#270
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238	Originally Posted by yrreg In brief, it is the assertion that since the world shows the appearance of design, there must be a designer, a fallacy in that it skips the premise that the appearance of design necessarily requires a designer. That could be an instance of impasse between you and me, that you are of the conviction that the world shows the appearance of design, while I am of the human certainty that the world has the reality of design. Of course if you have some other argument, and agree that the argument from design is no good, you'd do better to present yours on its own merits, rather than getting sidetracked into something neither of us would care to spend time on. I never say that I find the argument from design to be no good. And I did not bring up the argument from design, you are the one, wherefore you should not say that I am sidetracking into something neither of us would care to spend time on. Please for the sake of maintaining a neat and tidy discussion, abstain from bringing in a lot of code words like "appearance of design," on which and by which you have already inured a psychological position in your brain and nerves of negation against God. Yrreg What???
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238

21st February 2009, 04:39 PM	#271
X Slide Rulez 4 Life Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Launching the army, waiting for Hok to commit her forces (then the moles strike...) Posts: 4,082	Originally Posted by yrreg Please for the sake of maintaining a neat and tidy discussion, abstain from bringing in a lot of code words like "appearance of design," on which and by which you have already inured a psychological position in your brain and nerves of negation against God. This sentence should be taken out back and shot. It's a traitor to the English language! Honestly, Yrreg, what are you on about?
	__________________ It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis

21st February 2009, 04:56 PM	#272
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,089	Originally Posted by yrreg And I did not bring up the argument from design... Please could you explain why you consider communication satellites and the Moon to be evidence for the existence of God?
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

21st February 2009, 05:01 PM	#273
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	First we have a concept of something, then we go forth and look for it. 2 Start reading from the line below, bypassing the long citation: [ Start here, if you are short of time. ] ------------------------------ Originally Posted by yrreg Posted by bruto Posted by yrreg If you want me to react to you, just pm me, I am dealing now with bruto. Now, bruto, you agree with me that the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything is possible in your brain. Suppose we now go forth and search for this God. Is that a sensible adventure. And please don't bring in creator, not now, just keep to my concept of God as worded, scil., the maker of heaven and earth and everything. That is the trouble with atheists, they keep bringing in things which they need not, but should keep to the terms of the thesis or proposition or the concept as stated: God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything. I am not sure why you should balk at the word "creator" as a substitute for "maker," but have it your way if it makes you comfortable. Is searching for such a god a sensible adventure? Yes, I think it is, but with a couple of qualifications. First of all, if the search is going to be based only on the properties in your definition - that is, on the presumption that what we are looking for is the maker of heaven and earth and everything, then it would see we must start at searching for the answer to the question of whether there is any evidence that "heaven, earth and everything," what most of us are wont to call the universe, can properly be considered to have been "made" by some agency that can be identified. Second, whether or not the adventure is sensible at this moment depends rather a lot on whether it has already been undertaken. As it happens, I spend spent a good bit of time and energy in my youth trying to connect with that concept of yours, and the adventure ended with no such connection. I'm older now, and other adventures interest me far more. Therefore, I suggest that if you are in a mood to undertake the adventure, go right ahead. Report your success if you have any, present your evidence, and make your case. But I am no longer in the mood to chase after God. You say: As it happens, I ~~spend~~ spent a good bit of time and energy in my youth trying to connect with that concept of yours, and the adventure ended with no such connection. I'm older now, and other adventures interest me far more. First we have a concept of something, then we go forth and look for it. You spent a good bit of time and energy in your youth trying to connect with that concept of God, and the adventure ended with no such connection. You did not find something that corresponds to the concept of maker of heaven and earth and everything. That is really most disappointing on your part. In my case I will first render the concept even more simple, telling myself that I am looking for a maker of everything. A maker of something is easy to locate, for example maker of shoes, maker of cheese, maker of car batteries, one can find all such kinds of makers easily. A maker of babies also, you are I would like to assume are one with your spouse, I am certainly one with my wife. A brief reflection should tell you that of all makers of things that we know to have been made, humans are the ones doing all the making which we call artifacts: from spaceships which go into distant space and return to earth, to great gigantic dams to produce energy from water, control water flow, and also irrigate dry plains for agricultural pursuits. Should I mention other artifacts of humans in all fields of human endeavors which make life more safe, last longer, and more comfortable, and enable humans themselves to come to greater and greater knowledge of the universe? As regards knowledge you are aware that with man's brain and the instrumentation he has contrived man has multiplied with greater and greater acceleration the quantity and quality and certainty of his knowledge of the universe outside man and also within man himself. At this point, I ask you, do you know where I am leading to? Yrreg [ Start here, if you are short of time. ] At this point, I ask you, do you know where I am leading to? But you jumped right away to the argument from design by which you betray your prejudgment that design in the world is only an appearance. Is that your conviction? In which case as I have said already, for me the design in the world is a reality of which I have certainty about insofar as I have a brain that works as it should work. That is an instance of impasse between you and me, and are you going to continue bringing up everything that you do not like to be appearances? Because I cannot see how we can have any productive discussion when one party you are of the conviction that everything is appearance. I was asking you whether you got what I was leading to, but you did not get what I was leading to. Let that pass for the present. Now we do have some very important matter to settle. For you the design in the world is appearance, for me it is reality. What other things in the world for you is appearance aside from the design in the world. Or is everything that is design in the world for is you appearance, like the design of the moon's rotation and orbit? And also the conception of a baby if you ever made a baby with a person of the opposite sex, that is not design but at most an appearance of design -- because the design in the world is appearance only. About what I am leading to, I guess it is now on the shelf unless and until we can get to know what are for you appearances in the world and what are not. Yrreg
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

21st February 2009, 05:08 PM	#274
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,496	Originally Posted by yrreg I was not thinking of the intelligent design argument, not that I can directly link what I have in mind with the intelligent design argument. Originally Posted by yrreg That could be an instance of impasse between you and me, that you are of the conviction that the world shows the appearance of design, while I am of the human certainty that the world has the reality of design. Egon: There's one important thing I forgot to tell you. Peter: What? Egon: Don't cross the logic streams. Peter: Why? Egon: It would be bad. Peter: I'm Fuzzy on this whole good bad thing. What do you mean, "bad?" Egon: Try to imagine all of rationality as you know it stopping instantaneously and every irony meter in your universe exploding at the speed of light. Joobz: Total Argument Reversal Peter: Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

21st February 2009, 05:15 PM	#275
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238	Well, Joobz, I don't think there is any need to get excited: it is all perfectly clear. The world is designed: just not intelligently. Relax
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238