You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
The only test it leaves you is a test for human intelligence, of which "test" is 100% grounded in a fully circular logic...
The assumption of only human intelligence alone as the highest intelligence (excluding any potential higher intelligence that is not human) on the basis of human intelligence alone, may be a practical reality for most, but that doesn't make it an objectively logical assumption. It is circular reasoning. Period.
Those who can't see the circular nature of the flawed thinking of human intelligence evaluating a possible non human higher intelligence on the basis of human intelligence, are 100% bound to the limits of human intelligence...
Or is there someone out there who thinks human intelligence is not limited in nature...
If there were (there may be) a higher intelligence that would require something beyond human intelligence (say human faith, human love, etc.) to be known) those who would refuse to apply anything but human intelligence would remain without any possible intelligent "evolution" of intelligence.
Just more evidence of arguments from ignorance and limited intelligence...
The assumption of only human intelligence alone as the highest intelligence (excluding any potential higher intelligence that is not human) on the basis of human intelligence alone, may be a practical reality for most, but that doesn't make it an objectively logical assumption. It is circular reasoning. Period.
Those who can't see the circular nature of the flawed thinking of human intelligence evaluating a possible non human higher intelligence on the basis of human intelligence, are 100% bound to the limits of human intelligence...
Or is there someone out there who thinks human intelligence is not limited in nature...
If there were (there may be) a higher intelligence that would require something beyond human intelligence (say human faith, human love, etc.) to be known) those who would refuse to apply anything but human intelligence would remain without any possible intelligent "evolution" of intelligence.
Just more evidence of arguments from ignorance and limited intelligence...
Quote from Turok:
SA:
>If you reject the Big Bang as being intelligent â after
>acknowledging that it created so many books and other
>works of art, it leaves you with no test for intelligence.
I believe Scott to be a very bright guy, but that logic is so flawed it surprises me he wrote it.
JB
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
The only test it leaves you is a test for human intelligence, of which "test" is 100% grounded in a fully circular logic...
The assumption of only human intelligence alone as the highest intelligence (excluding any potential higher intelligence that is not human) on the basis of human intelligence alone, may be a practical reality for most, but that doesn't make it an objectively logical assumption. It is circular reasoning. Period.
Those who can't see the circular nature of the flawed thinking of human intelligence evaluating a possible non human higher intelligence on the basis of human intelligence, are 100% bound to the limits of human intelligence...
Or is there someone out there who thinks human intelligence is not limited in nature...
If there were (there may be) a higher intelligence that would require something beyond human intelligence (say human faith, human love, etc.) to be known) those who would refuse to apply anything but human intelligence would remain without any possible intelligent "evolution" of intelligence.
Just more evidence of arguments from ignorance and limited intelligence...
Have you read "Phenomenology of Spirit?"
Pardon me, but you have a habit of asking people if they have read other people's thoughts.
Why not just post your own? Or at least put what you read into your own words. Show people you now own what you read...
Or does that require your own intelligence to be active, making your own arguments, etc., instead of mindlessly saying "read this book."
It is pointless to try to have a discussion with a book...maybe that is what you do, I don't know.
If the author of the book you reference wants to join in, by all means.
Otherwise it just degrades into one person interpreting what some books says, with one personal saying "it means this, because the 17th definition of some word can mean this...and the other arguing, no, it is the 16th definition...
Useless...
Why not just post your own? Or at least put what you read into your own words. Show people you now own what you read...
Or does that require your own intelligence to be active, making your own arguments, etc., instead of mindlessly saying "read this book."
It is pointless to try to have a discussion with a book...maybe that is what you do, I don't know.
If the author of the book you reference wants to join in, by all means.
Otherwise it just degrades into one person interpreting what some books says, with one personal saying "it means this, because the 17th definition of some word can mean this...and the other arguing, no, it is the 16th definition...
Useless...
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
Have you read "Phenomenology of Spirit?"
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
Have you read "Phenomenology of Spirit?"
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Pardon me, but you have a habit of asking people if they have read other people's thoughts.
Why not just post your own? Or at least put what you read into your own words. Show people you now own what you read...
Or does that require your own intelligence to be active, making your own arguments, etc., instead of mindlessly saying "read this book."
It is pointless to try to have a discussion with a book...maybe that is what you do, I don't know.
If the author of the book you reference wants to join in, by all means.
Otherwise it just degrades into one person interpreting what some books says, with one personal saying "it means this, because the 17th definition of some word can mean this...and the other arguing, no, it is the 16th definition...
Useless...
This is classic. Z10 doesn't even know where he got it wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_of_Spirit
If you think you can understand this world without knowing any of the prior knowledge (we already know what your attitude is towards science), you're either the biggest genius in human history, or the biggest idiot.
I take that back. There are always bigger idiots. So you cannot possibly be the biggest.
Prior knowledge you refer to would all be human knowledge, and therefore limited to sense and intellect based experiences.
If a person limits themselves to experience of senses and intellect alone, shunning all other possibilities, then all their knowledge will have that limitation.
Senses and intellect are limited instruments.
Therefore these instruments will always produce limited knowledge.
So those who are satisfied with limited knowledge, fine by me.
Those who want something beyond that can look for that.
Oh, and I suggest you put things in your own words, demonstrate you can think for yourself, make your own logical arguments or put others in your own words..and what do you do?
Link to Wikipedia.
Classic, simply classic...
If a person limits themselves to experience of senses and intellect alone, shunning all other possibilities, then all their knowledge will have that limitation.
Senses and intellect are limited instruments.
Therefore these instruments will always produce limited knowledge.
So those who are satisfied with limited knowledge, fine by me.
Those who want something beyond that can look for that.
Oh, and I suggest you put things in your own words, demonstrate you can think for yourself, make your own logical arguments or put others in your own words..and what do you do?
Link to Wikipedia.
Classic, simply classic...
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
This is classic. Z10 doesn't even know where he got it wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_of_Spirit
If you think you can understand this world without knowing any of the prior knowledge (we already know what your attitude is towards science), you're either the biggest genius in human history, or the biggest idiot.
I take that back. There are always bigger idiots. So you cannot possibly be the biggest.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Prior knowledge you refer to would all be human knowledge, and therefore limited to sense and intellect based experiences.
If a person limits themselves to experience of senses and intellect alone, shunning all other possibilities, then all their knowledge will have that limitation.
Senses and intellect are limited instruments.
Therefore these instruments will always produce limited knowledge.
So those who are satisfied with limited knowledge, fine by me.
Those who want something beyond that can look for that.
Oh, and I suggest you put things in your own words, demonstrate you can think for yourself, make your own logical arguments or put others in your own words..and what do you do?
Link to Wikipedia.
Classic, simply classic...
You're not worth it (my "own logical arguments"). Maybe I'll do that when you demonstrate that your knowledge level is beyond that of a 2nd grader. You don't even know Hegel.
I almost feel sorry for you.
So you are reduced to the following:
"You're not worth it."
"I'll do that when you demonstrate that your knowledge level is beyond that of a 2nd grader."
"You don't even know Hegel."
"I almost feel sorry for you."
"But she breaks just like a little girl.."
--Bob Dylan-- "Just like a Woman"
No worries for you, expect the clones to come in for the rescue...
"You're not worth it."
"I'll do that when you demonstrate that your knowledge level is beyond that of a 2nd grader."
"You don't even know Hegel."
"I almost feel sorry for you."
"But she breaks just like a little girl.."
--Bob Dylan-- "Just like a Woman"
No worries for you, expect the clones to come in for the rescue...
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
You're not worth it (my "own logical arguments"). Maybe I'll do that when you demonstrate that your knowledge level is beyond that of a 2nd grader. You don't even know Hegel.
I almost feel sorry for you.
SA:
>>If you reject the Big Bang as being intelligent â after
>>acknowledging that it created so many books and other
>>works of art, it leaves you with no test for intelligence.
Me:
>I believe Scott to be a very bright guy, but that logic
>is so flawed it surprises me he wrote it.
Just so Ztroll's strawman doesn't stand, In my statement I didn't attempt to evaluate "something beyond human intelligence". I evaluated a fellow humans logic (Scott Adams) and found it wanting.
JB
>>If you reject the Big Bang as being intelligent â after
>>acknowledging that it created so many books and other
>>works of art, it leaves you with no test for intelligence.
Me:
>I believe Scott to be a very bright guy, but that logic
>is so flawed it surprises me he wrote it.
Quote from ARogueTrader(ART)/Optional77/JaneDoe/Zx/Etc.::
If there were (there may be) a higher intelligence that would require something beyond human intelligence (say human faith, human love, etc.) to be known) those who would refuse to apply anything but human intelligence would remain without any possible intelligent "evolution" of intelligence.
Just more evidence of arguments from ignorance and limited intelligence...
Just so Ztroll's strawman doesn't stand, In my statement I didn't attempt to evaluate "something beyond human intelligence". I evaluated a fellow humans logic (Scott Adams) and found it wanting.
JB
neophyte321
Guest
Here's an honest question that could be misconstrued as an antagonistic one, (or just as easily, it could be an antagonistic question confused as an honest one)....
Can the Big Bang be worshipped?
Can the Big Bang be worshipped?