Joined: Sep. 2017
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2017,20:28)|
|Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Nov. 07 2017,19:25)|
|Let's look at some quotes of people contradicting you, shall we?|
|stop moving the goalposts by adding things into the premise of the theory that are not in there like "intelligent designer" instead of "intelligent cause".|
Oh, whoops, that is awkward, if the two are the same entity, how is it moving the goalposts to use the other term? Whoever wrote that quote must strongly disagree with you!
And here's another guy who seems to disagree completely with you:
|Intelligent Designer related questions such as those are best answered at this forum:|
He even implies that any mentions of an intelligent designer are a sign of shitty philosophy!
What you are doing is the same as demanding Wesley to explain the origin of a godlike entity the premise of Charles Darwin's theory (according to you) named the "Natural Selector".
You can expect a similar kind of response from me. Use proper phrases, or you do not deserve to be taken seriously. It's otherwise a question that only a place like the ask a shitty philosopher forum would (for entertainment value) want to try answering.
And once again, you don't even pretend to address anything I have said, but rather repeat the initial nonsense I just refuted.
Okay, I'm gonna be extra slow this time.
You claim your "theory" shows that "certain features of living beings are best explained by an intelligent cause".
(All throughout this gibberish)
You also claim that other than the fact that you happened to use the word "cause", there is no difference between "intelligent cause" and "intelligent designer", they are the same entity.
(Here's the post)
You also admit that the very premise of your "theory" is copied word for word from the Discovery Institute's definition of Intelligent Design.
What you have is by any definition intelligent design, and your "intelligent cause" is -even by your own admission- the same thing as an intelligent designer.
This is why it's painfully obvious that you make this shit up as you go along, when you sporadically protest that someone used the term "intelligent designer", instead of "intelligent cause".....only to then admit that the words are synonymous, and already having admitted that your very definition of your theory is the exact same definition that the discovery institute uses - without any attempt to pretend that "cause" refers to anything but a designer.
Do you understand that now? Do you understand, that you are contradicting yourself, when you say that anything involving "intelligent designer" is shitty philosophy, after you admit that "intelligent cause" IS "intelligent designer"?
And do you understand that crying "moving the goalposts" is completely misused, when someone uses the term "intelligent designer"? (Can't stress this enough, you yourself admitted that they are "the same entity")
I know I repeated myself a lot in this, but as the last exchange showed, you have really big trouble grasping simple concepts.