oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006
|
Ok, one last one!
I've found where Gordo actually gives *answers* to all the basic ID questions!
| Quote | "1)Who is the Designer?
--> Of what? Of DNA and the associated FSCI-rich nanotechnology of cellular level life? In short, detecting credible evidence that points t life as showing signs pointing to design, and being willing to entertain the implications of FSCI, are prior to any such inference to identity of proposed designers.
--> Of a given code detected through say cryptanalysis? Why, that may be the precise point of an intellligence investigation. [And BTW, can you identify a single case where, knowing the source of a code independent of speculative theories, we see codes that are not artifacts of minds, i.e. intelligent agency?]
--> Of the massively fine-tuned, contingent observed cosmos that has in it a common system of laws and unimaginably large energy and scale, and as of my last check was dated as originating in a cosmic singualrity some 13.7 BYA? Why, if we see a world of contingent beings then that implies a necessary being as their sufficient reason – by plain logic. And since necessity acts whenever sufficient conditions are met, origination of the cosmos at a finite point in time implies necessity is not the root cause. Finetuning implies that chance is maximally unlikely – unless you resort tot he infinite array of randomly distributed sub-cosmi. And that is unobservable so it is metaphysical speculation. Suppression of the concept that an extracosmic designer of vast power and intelligence is the source then becomes worldview level censorship. .
2)Where did s/he/it come from?
--> Cf discussion at 1 supra.
3)Is there just one designer or are there many?
--> At cosmic scale we see evidence of one system of laws, and that the many contingencies are so finely set that we see evident setting up of parameters supportive of the emergence of life. Thus, it is by Occam most reasonable to infer to one designer, as we need no more than one to achieve this.
4)How did the Designer do the designing?
--> That is what science as a programme of investigation is about here: reverse-engineering the cosmos so we see the underlying structures and systems: describe, explain, predict, influence/control. In short, the designer acted in accordance with certain laws, which we as other agents can discover, correlate and apply to our own advantage.
5)When did the Designer do the designing?
--> Since time as we know it begins for the observed cosmos some 13.7 BYA, then the cosmological design is outside of the reference of our space-time system.
--> Life on earth is generally held to date to something like 3.5 – 8 BYA or whatever latest date is put forth. Before that is a trivial and satisfactory answer.
--> In the case of say steganography hiding an Al Qaeda instruction, the timing may be a bit harder to pin down [save for: in the rather recent past] but can with correlation to other phenomena be used in some cases to help catch the terrs before they act.
6)Is the Designer still designing or has s/he/it retired?"
--> WHICH designer? Al Qaeda's notorious Mr Usama Bin Laden? [We can only hope that hehas retired, in that case . . .]
--> Of the cosmos and/or life? For that we have no direct scientific evidence to report in either direction. But, if there is in fact an extracosmic designer who is a necessary being, then we have no reason to believe that such is capable of retirement – but that is a matter for philosophy not physics etc. And, note the distinction made here between science and a wider universe of discourse that as Lakatos and many others point out, may lie at the core of praxis in any given era.
__ |
"no direct scientific evidence to report in either direction" eh Gordo? So your position is not science and you admit it yourself huh?
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group..........410
And what do you make of this? | Quote | | Suppression of the concept that an extracosmic designer of vast power and intelligence is the source then becomes worldview level censorship |
No, actually I think that the idea of "god" is quite well disseminated by now Gordo.
What a sorry bastard he is.
Let me paraphrase his answers:
1) Goddidit.
2) Don't know.
3) Don't know.
4) Don't know.
5) In the distant past or today. Don't know.
6) Don't know.
So what Gordo does know is that his particular godiddit (a.k.a extracosmic designer of vast power and intelligence) but fuck all else. And he manages to spin his fuck all into tens of thousands of words at the drop of a hat.
--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings
|
