avocationist
Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
Creeky Belly,
| Quote |
Me: In the end, I can see only two choices. Ether there is a mind involved in the whole process of this cosmos, or there isn't. They aren't the same at all, and they won't look the same. I would just not worry too much about diminishing God by finding natural explanations. The question is, do we live in a universe with a mind or not. The idea that God shrinks is downright silly. Supposedly, people were real deflated when they figured out angels didn't push the planets around. So they said God lost a job. What nonsense. Isn't the truth more magnificent, the planning more impressive? The old way of looking at things was like a fairy tale, with a magic-wand God. God's domain can never shrink. It is a nonproblem.
You: I agree, but what you've just stated is not a theory of ID, it's a creationist (philosophical) argument, all or nothing. ID wants to have it both ways: X can be observed naturally, therefore supernatural explanation. It masquerades as science until it draws a conclusion. Unfortunately for ID, scientists can see through the bullshit. (I should say, to keep with the logical fallacies, true scientists can see through the bullshit) |
I'm not sure which part you agree with, and which is creationist bullshit. Yes, it was a philosophical answer, because your original question was philosophical: you worry that if we find naturalistic explanations for things, God's domain shrinks. I find it hard to relate to this. On one hand, I do not believe in the supernatural, and I don't think there is such a thing as disrupting the laws of physics. On the other hand, if we manufacture a car, we have definitely designed something that nature alone could not, but neither have we gone against the laws of nature. I also resent being called a creationist because it is usually pejoriative and often refers to Biblical literalists. Whatever poor sap wrote Genesis probably never dreamed humanity would descend to such an extremity of foolishness as to take it literally.
Deadman,
| Quote | there are two possibilities. Either things are accidental or they are designed, and the two can be told apart.
How? Be precise. Don't just point to Dembski's mathemagical tripe.
|
I don't point to his tripe because I haven't read it. But I have read some explanations of information from an ID viewpoint in the Meyer paper, probably Spetner and perhaps also Dembski in a short essay. Generally, we don't have too much trouble discerning when things are designed or not. There may be some ambiguous cases, but ID would not focus on those. There comes a point of complexity, when the probability of unguided processes producing the result just becomes untenable. Where it becomes more rational and reasonable to infer design. That people who believe in an omnipotent and moralizing God argue against that, not just as to whether we have reached that point, but whether we ever can, is puzzling to say the least.
It's important to realize that because we aren't sure, we speak as if we had a choice of universes, whereas in fact there is only one kind. Either we live in a God universe or we don't, and they are mutually exclusive. If there is a God, then existence without God is a nonpossibility. If there is no God, then God is a silly notion, and there is not possibility of one. If we live in a God universe, it is a designed universe, and if it is a designed universe then a nondesigned one cannot have any existence and therfore cannot be rationally postulated.
Wesley,(or anyone)
I read down quite a bit on the link about falsifiability, but I never found the point made that I am looking for. So why is it that ID is not falsifiable if we could account for IC and CSI?
Altabin,
Very disappointing post. I thought we had established a bit of rapport, but apparently not. I'm sorry you didn't realize my remark about people disappearing was meant to be a joke. Probably you haven't read through the history of this thread, in which I made it clear I'm unhappy about the moderation over there.
The alien thing comes from a genre of books about it.
| Quote |
[Cedric's jaw drops open. His drink falls from his suddenly useless fingers onto the floor and rolls under the sofa.] |
Not sure why.
****************
I made several replies to all the entropy nonsense. Won't go over it again in detail. My points were:
I never did have any 'argument' regarding the second law.
My interest in the second law has nothing to do with the ID debate, never did, it was a side issue that struck me at the time, largely due to a book I'm reading on a different topic.
Entropy is not only defined as a variable, but as a process and a result.
How can you say that we cannot discuss entropy unless we have the ability to plug in the actual numerical values? Do the laws of physics only work if we have learnt to understand and quantify them?
Everything Improvius said in post 633 is obviously true.
I find it VERY odd that people keep thinking I'm worried that the SLOT prevents evolution. I do realize that has been done by creationists, but how many times do I have to make myself clear, and if you guys don't listen well to that, why should I expect you to listen to what else I say?
| Quote | | But please note that Berlinski's beef is with the thermodynamics of abiogenesis, not evolution proper. None of the observed mechanisms driving evolution run contrary to the Second Law so long as the animals eat. :) |
You too, Paley? sigh
|
