You never did before, why should now be any different?
-
Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 03:31 AM)
Okay, maybe the overturning of Kitzmiller v. Dover took you by complete surprise.
When did that happen, Arlon? Did you finally release your paper?
"Whether homosexuality causes less harm (than slavery) is debatable" -
Hada -
Arlon10 — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 03:40 AM)
When did that happen, Arlon?
Your colleague graham-167 advanced the discussion, accepting that there had to be an intelligent designer, but that it could have been something not a god such as an alien with no more science than we have. It sparked much interest.
Of course
when
Kitzmiller v. Dover is overturned in the courts present science will have to be revised in order to make the alien answer any good. Scientists, I would recommend at least about 97 percent, should suddenly realize the big bang was a hoax perpetrated by theists.
~~
Matthew 15:14 -
Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 03:46 AM)
accepting that there had to be an intelligent designer
No he didn't. Don't lie Arlon.
Of course when Kitzmiller v. Dover is overturned in the courts
OK, so it hasn't been overturned, and there's no indication it ever will be?
"Whether homosexuality causes less harm (than slavery) is debatable" -
Hada -
Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 04:10 AM)
Having not seen the original conversation, I assume he was talking about a hypothetical intelligent designer being responsible for seeding life on earth and if this intelligent designer existed, it would more likely be from another planet than the Christian God.
"Whether homosexuality causes less harm (than slavery) is debatable" -
Hada -
Arlon10 — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 04:15 AM)
You're not so slow after all then.
more likely be from another planet than the Christian God
Again with the "Christian" god. No, that is not at all what intelligent design implies. I already knew that.
~~
Matthew 15:14 -
Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 04:31 AM)
Again with the "Christian" god. No, that is not at all what intelligent design implies.
It absolutely is. Intelligent design is just a rebranding of Christian creationism.
"Whether homosexuality causes less harm (than slavery) is debatable" -
Hada -
filmflaneur — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 04:33 AM)
No, that is not at all what intelligent design implies
It may not be what ID says but, the leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. Although they state that ID is not creationism and deliberately avoid assigning a personality to the designer, many of these proponents express belief that the designer is the Christian deity. However since Arlon explicitly disassociates himself from a preferred candidate at this point then it might be just as well one which is insane, evil, absent, inefficient - or even a group. Also intelligent is not the same as
deliberate
.
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000 -
Miscella — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 03:47 PM)
Also intelligent is not the same as
deliberate
.
How can there be one without the other? Are you suggesting that if the universe has an 'Intelligent Designer', it may have not have been deliberately designed? -
filmflaneur — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 04:01 AM)
How can there be one without the other? Are you suggesting that if the universe has an 'Intelligent Designer', it may have not have been deliberately designed?[/
Well, it is quite possible to think of a supernatural entity, for its own inscrutable reasons, setting things off by accident before walking away, like a player setting off a billiard game with single shot. The resulting order would be entirely random and unique and yet still be the result of 'intelligence'. An absentee landlord like that would certainly explain why so much of everything is cold, dark, 'empty' and random, within a set of standard 'laws', and why evidence of His continuing interest in reality is so hard to find at least - outside the claims of credulity and scripture.
A force which just starts everything, and then offs and ends its work, of course could equally also just be an entirely natural one - or, even it could be that things could have started at random and in fact it could just be it is the 'laws' themselves that are an eternal, infinite 'brute fact' (such laws also forcing the initial provocation to start). As such we would have no intelligence, just a permanent blind 'deliberation', or a determination, over what happens and how, by the 'just is' structure of reality. Based on what we can see of reality, it is just as logical to think this than consider a Designer working the strings.
Also, against what standard would you measure a god as being 'intelligent' or 'stupid'? A quiz show? You? Other gods?
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000 -
Miscella — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 11:50 AM)
Well, it is quite possible to think of a supernatural entity, for its own inscrutable reasons, setting things off by accident before walking away, like a player setting off a billiard game with single shot.
Wouldn't that be more of a deistic position than an atheistic one?
A force which just starts everything, and then offs and ends its work, of course could equally also just be an entirely natural one - or, even it could be that things could have started at random and in fact it could just be it is the 'laws' themselves that are an eternal, infinite 'brute fact' (such laws also forcing the initial provocation to start).
If nothing can bring itself into existence, why would nature itself be an exception? Do you smell porridge? I smell porridge. And do laws not require a lawmaker?
Also, against what standard would you measure a god as being 'intelligent' or 'stupid'?
As opposed to having no capacity for thought and reason. -
filmflaneur — 9 years ago(January 17, 2017 04:03 AM)
Well, it is quite possible to think of a supernatural entity, for its own inscrutable reasons, setting things off by accident before walking away, like a player setting off a billiard game with single shot.
Wouldn't that be more of a deistic position than an atheistic one?
Well I can't speak for all atheists, but the form of god I lack belief in is something supernatural, with human characteristics and which is deliberate. There is a fine emphasis, but an important one between a Cause "walking away" and "its influence ended". Ultimately deism can shade into something that virtually everyone can accept a variant of, as Einstein showed.
If nothing can bring itself into existence, why would nature itself be an exception?
In the same way that God is seen as one. (And remember how I pointed out that pure "nothing" in nature does not exist for science as there is always something? I do.) The permanent existence in nature of a quantum structure for things, or of different variations of how a universe might work, is not the same as 'nothing'. If one is happy to accept a complex figure such as a fully characterised supernatural entity pulling strings as a necessary 'brute fact' of reality, then extending a similar proposal for something that has always been and must be at the most basic level of a natural, blind, reality is just as logical. Any estimate of 'design' is really down to a credulity threshold. Some people prefer permanent Papas. I prefer permanent processes. But this has been opined here before.
Also, against what standard would you measure a god as being 'intelligent' or 'stupid'?
As opposed to having no capacity for thought and reason
But how does one know for sure that the human standards for such things are relevant or even relatable? And can't something intelligent act stupid?
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000 -
Miscella — 9 years ago(January 17, 2017 06:08 PM)
Well I can't speak for all atheists, but the form of god I lack belief in is something supernatural, with human characteristics and which is deliberate.
Like an old bearded man in the clouds throwing lightning bolts down onto the sinners of the world?
Ultimately deism can shade into something that virtually everyone can accept a variant of, as Einstein showed.
Then why are you an atheist and not a deist?
In the same way that God is seen as one.
Fair enough. However If nature created itself, or is eternal, would that not mean nature itself is supernatural?
But this has been opined here before.
Then maybe you should opine something new.
But how does one know for sure that the human standards for such things are relevant or even relatable?
Why does intelligence have to be a human standard?
And can't something intelligent act stupid?
Some say Jerry Lewis was a genius, but that's beside the point. Here, stupid just means less intelligent than someone or something else. Even morons have the capacity for thought and reason. -
filmflaneur — 9 years ago(January 24, 2017 02:58 AM)
Like an old bearded man in the clouds throwing lightning bolts down onto the sinners of the world?
Now you are just being silly, who would ever possibly think of a god as male, living up in heaven and occasionally working natural events to punish the ungodly on earth?
Then why are you an atheist and not a deist?
I am only atheist in that I lack belief in the deliberate supernatural as a Cause. I am quite happy to accept that there is a cause for everything, even if the cause is necessarily contained as a permanent natural, most basic part of everything. Haven't you been reading?
If nature created itself, or is eternal, would that not mean nature itself is supernatural?
I don't see why this is a necessary consideration. But I can see how it might seem that way to someone who sees modern physics for instance as counter-intuitive, and instead prefers more traditional, magical types of proposed realities. Ultimately anything we don't understand fully or find it hard to comprehend can just be attributed to magic, since for some it can be indistinguishable.
maybe you should opine something new.
Unfortunately one sometimes just has to repeat things until they sink in.
But how does one know for sure that the human standards for such things are relevant or even relatable?
Why does intelligence have to be a human standard?
I think you have answered my question. See below.
Here, stupid just means less intelligent than someone or something else.
In the case of a purported Cause, all that 'intelligence' boils down to is 'deliberate'. If (as above) we might be considering an intelligence other than our own then we can know nothing about it as it would be beyond our ken, and statements about it likely to be meaningless. That's when credulity comes in handy, and God works in mysterious ways leaving people to be "inspired" by it to find a reason to believe. Allegedly.
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000 -
Miscella — 9 years ago(January 24, 2017 04:42 PM)
the form of god I lack belief in is something supernatural, with human characteristics and which is deliberate.
Like an old bearded man in the clouds throwing lightning bolts down onto the sinners of the world?
who would ever possibly think of a god as male, living up in heaven and occasionally working natural events to punish the ungodly on earth?
If that's a no, perhaps now would be a good time to be more specific about the 'form of god' you lack belief in.
I am only atheist in that I lack belief in the deliberate supernatural as a Cause.
So when you said that deism can shade into something in which virtually everyone can accept a variant of, did you mean to stress 'virtually' so you could exclude yourself from everyone when it becomes convenient to do so?
Haven't you been reading?
Unfortunately for you, I am hanging onto your every word.
Unfortunately one sometimes just has to repeat things until they sink in.
Oh, is that why you keep repeating yourself? Because you think it hasn't sunk in? That's cute.
stupid just means less intelligent than someone or something else
In the case of a purported Cause, all that 'intelligence' boils down to is 'deliberate'.
Is that a disagreement with what I said?
credulity
Again with the credulity. If people believe because they want to, can it not be said that the reason those who don't believe is because they
don't
want to? -
filmflaneur — 9 years ago(January 26, 2017 04:13 AM)
a good time to be more specific about the 'form of god' you lack belief in is that why you keep repeating yourself? Because you think it hasn't sunk in? That's cute
Well apparently the instance of me lacking belief in a deliberate and supernatural Cause of everything has not, at least. LOL
So when you said that deism can shade into something in which virtually everyone can accept a variant of, did you mean to stress 'virtually' so you could exclude yourself from everyone when it becomes convenient to do so?
I can accept the reasonable claims for a First Cause that is entirely natural, since for one thing we don't know all there is about the natural. Unfortunately there is not really too many other ways of putting this. One can, of course, make of 'god' anything enough to count as a 'deist' position. But, as has previously been discussed on this board in the same way I can claim a supermodel as my 'girlfriend' on flimsier and flimsier pretexts - even though there is no contact or knowledge of me by her whatsoever. But ultimately such a watering down and subjective process just renders 'girlfriend', like it would the idea of 'god', meaningless. Also, since it is reasonable to conjecture that a lot of people would see a deistic 'god' as still essentially a deliberate supernatural personality, even though I know Einstein at least is one famous exception, that would probably rule me out.
I am hanging onto your every word.
It is always nice to be appreciated.
In the case of a purported Cause, all that 'intelligence' boils down to is 'deliberate'.
Is that a disagreement with what I said?
Can't you tell? Does this mean you are no longer hanging on anymore?
Again with the credulity. If people believe because they want to, can it not be said that the reason those who don't believe is because they don't want to?
Well credulity is normally expressed as a over-willingness to believe
in
something without evidence, and not as an aspect of scepticism or doubt. Am I really being credulous to not have a belief, say, in unicorns especially when compared to with those fervents with faith that exist, making up the Unicorn Appreciation Society? There well may be a term to describe those who are very willing not to believe in something without evidence, but I am not sure credulity sits well here for what is, essentially, the implications of empiricism.
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000 -
Miscella — 9 years ago(January 27, 2017 03:49 PM)
incredulity
: The state of being unwilling or unable to believe something
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/incredulity -
filmflaneur — 9 years ago(January 30, 2017 03:23 AM)
I have no issues in being called incredulous, since that is perfectly in line with scepticism and doubt. Given the choice I'd rather, in fact, be known to take a good deal of convincing about the purported extraordinary than gullible in the face of what would be comforting, magical and childlike.
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000