avocationist
Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006
|
Santum,
I wasn't accusing you of left-handedness, more's the pity, since I consider it a compliment. It was a response to whoever originally posted the research that as the number of older brothers increase, a boy's chances of being gay increase, but that if he is left-handed it doesn't apply.
Puck,
Quote | If he allowed it to unfold, he allowed it to unfold following natural laws. The natural, "stupid" laws would have created all of reality. ID suggests that God poked...and kept poking. OR, ID doesnt even deal with this stuff, and just notices design. | OK, I think I see what you are saying. Maybe I am wrong but I don't really think ID insists upon evidence of poking. Evidence of design might lead a lot of people to assume that there was poking. But all ID really says is that we can see evidence for design. It doesn't really address who or how, by what sort of process. And just because they may say that the flagellum evidences design does not mean the design comes in discrete packets of poking. It simply means that certain systems are clear examples that let us know we are not dealing with an undesigned process.
Quote | So either ID is not an alternative for Evolution at all, and in fact may confirm evolution or ID claims that God kept poking...which is theism
SO which one do you believe Avo? ID as an alternative? or ID as a theory that has nothing to do with Evolution? | I think ID may in the end confirm a kind of evolution, but not the one Dawkins believes in.
The thing is, and this goes to some other commentors as well (GCT), we've got a dividing line going on and it is not in the same place on this website as it is over at UD. The ID dividing line, and mine, is intelligent, purposive input or not. That's it. So I put atheism on one side of the line and deism, theism, creationism, pantheism on the other.
I'm not saying there is no legitimate arguments between those interpretations.
Quote | First, random mutation can explain the flagellum...and all of the other "IC" systems... | Premature.
Quote | Second, if Evolutionary Theory cant currently explain something it doesnt mean that the theory is debunked... it may mean that theory doesnt apply to that particular example, or that the theory needs to be expanded. | That is fair enough, but I just can't help remembering when I asked a Christian at work what would happen to her belief in the Christ story if she found out that in the Mediteranian world of that time there were other gods with almost identical life stories as Jesus and which preceded his life by a couple of centuries. She said nothing would happen because she has faith.
Quote | You almost got the point. | Yeah, but you didn't. Point being, statements like that an arm is already a proto-wing just means anything goes, with enough imagination.
Quote | You would be more accurate to call Miller a confused Creationist rather than a confused IDist... | Yes, that works as well. Miller believes in ID (intelligent interference happened), however, he just thinks it is undetectable. So the argument is about whether God's interference is detectable, not whether it happened. So Miller thinks ID is true, but unprovable.
And I just have a problem with that defeatist attitude toward reality. If something is true, I cannot say that it will be forever unprovable. I certainly see no reason to insist upon it.
Quote | What if God is mean and hateful? | You mean like Jehovah?
Quote | There are not any rational arguments for a Christian God..thats pure belief | I agree, but who is the christian God. They say contradictory things. Some are beter than others.
Quote | the reason you have 2 "original" causal occurences is because you cannot even imagine for a moment that God does not exist. If you are arguing for God because of a causation argument, then there is absolutely no proof of YOUR God. Any original causal event would be your God. He might be completely devoid of consciousness. | I'm not following your argument. It is true I cannot imagine that God doesn't exist, any more than I can imagine magic. The point is that I used to be able to and now I can't. Once you see deeper into a situation, you can't unsee it. I am not sure consciousness of the personal variety is required, at least initially.
Quote | I dont know if you have noticed Avo, but a lot of people are beginning to get tired of this. They can tell that your not truly being open-minded. Your not even considering the alternative opinions to your own. | I'm sorry you think this, Puck. It looks like projection to me. I consider very seriously other people's opinions all the time and I have revised my own understandings far more than most people have, and will continue to do so. As to people getting tired, you have said such things several times now. I feel scolded. But if anyone is tired, they need not participate. Isn't that right?
Quote | Creationism is a more rational and honest belief than ID. ID is rubbish. At least creationism has something to stand on...the bible. | Oh, my heavens. The Bible? I just don't know what to say. To me, the inability to examine the Bible and see it for what it is could be a kind of litmus test for rationality. And open mindedness.
Quote | Go back to being a creationist...we will all respect you much much more | This is annoying and uncalled for. I was never a creationist. When I was a Christian, I knew that I had not examined the question of evolution, and took very little position on the matter.
Chris,
Quote | Because he is taking it for granted that a biological complex that performs a specific function is purposeful, which implies intention. And then he says that this implies intelligence, ie 'a purposeful arrangement of parts proves that the parts were arranged purposefully'. It's not wrong, it just doesn't go any way to proving his point. | OK, and so Behe thinks it does. He thinks that what he sees is too unlikely to have gotten itself together without help. I find the arguments from information and probability pretty strong. But you've read the same ones.
GCT,
The situation is pretty hopeless. No matter how many times I make the same point, you claim I am dishonest, inconsistent, a word twister and idea stealer. I'll be brief.
On Miller, see above.
Quote | You admit that NDE is not in conflict with theism, then equate it to atheism. | In my understanding of "pure" NDE, which you and others say is wrong, it does conflict with theism. Now, you are telling me that NDE includes both a God who set it up or a universe with no God. But that is not really one theory. As I explained above.
Quote | Who said anything about turtles? You are much closer to that than I am, insisting that things have a cause and all. | The problem is that we must understand the need for acausality, which defies our rational minds.
Quote | Matter is. End of story. | Unacceptable. Inadequate. Unless matter is God. About God, the simplest true statement is this: God is.
Quote | There is no logical need for a cause, and there is no scientific way of finding the cause that you think exists. How do YOU account for matter? You say, "Goddidit," which is completely scientifically useless. | Matter arises from God, either automatically, or as a choice.
Quote | Why must god be the source of the universe? Why can't god simply be an observer that has the power to interfere and does or does not? Oh yeah, it's because you've already made your a priori assumptions about what god is and isn't. | You need to really think about this.
Quote | There is a difference between seeing lack of perfection in a being and rejection of that being or lack of support for that being. Even the Bible agrees. When Jesus speaks of the perfection of the Father, he gives the example that He sends his rain to the just and the unjust.
Thank you for proving my point. Your reversal from the position that god is all about love is nice. | What reversal? I said God does not reject or fail to support all beings, whether they are right or wrong, and that this does not conflict with the need to attain perfection and lose imperfection.
Quote | This: The perception of God is outside the range you are used to. was not a snipe at you. It is more or less the human condition. ************************* I don't believe you. You are saying that I am either sub-human or you are super-human. Either way, I am less than you. | I'm saying that I have spend many years working on a better understanding of the nature of God, and that I had a significant breakthrough at some point, in my mid thirties. The instrinsic worth of every human being is exactly the same.
Quote | I'm saying they are mutually exclusive. If one is true, the other both isn't, and cannot be. ***************** Are those goal posts heavy? | What are you talking about? I have made the same point over and over.
Quote | NDE vs. design, however, is a false dichotomy. | So this is the same definition problem. Over at the design sites, this is precisely the dichotomy they are bucking.
Quote | If I were you, I'd be embarrassed to try to pass this off as non-religio/philosophical and scientific. | My discussion about God is philosophical. I don't think such ideas are antiscientific, but I am not trying to pass off my ideas as science.
Quote | You admit that the designer must be god, but then try to say it is scientific in the same breath. | The author of the universe and life is God. I am not convinced about who wrote the DNA code. Reality is reality. That is what I can't seem to get across. You have just stated above that God and science are not to be spoken in the same breath. Look, if there is a God, IF--- then it does not conflict with science. It cannot.
Quote | Science is studying that which makes the world understandable. The existence of something that can completely alter existence or violate any physical law seems completely contradictory to what science is. | Do you realize that if God exists that it is already true? The existence of God may by realized as true in the future by particular minds, but if God is true, it is true now and was true all along. Therefore, it is silly to worry that the existence of God will make existence incoherent. And I do not think God does or can violate physical laws! It is a contradiction.
Quote | Oh, and science is limited, that's part of what makes it work. If we simply accepted "goddidit" as a potential explanation for everything, we wouldn't get anywhere. | Take that whole phrase, which is a useless meme someone fed you, and throw it in the trash.
And read Bhodidharma. I prescribe Buddhism for you.
|