Quote from Ether64:
Quote from kjkent1:
âResponse: The difference is that I can get on a plane and fly to that land at the other side of the ocean. I cannot get on a plane and fly to Heaven.âSo youâre saying by this statement, that just because mankind has not devised a way to do this yet...it is impossible? See...this is the reason for the first discussion I had with you about this, concerning the working within the confines of what is possible at this point in time. Years ago, people could not get into a plane and fly to the other side of that land, like they can today. Did that still mean that that land did not exist? No. And had you lived in that time period, you would not have been able to apply your set of measurements to it. In that day and time...few if any, even thought it was possible for man to fly in the air like a bird. Years later, it happened. Could this have been referred to at that time as magic?
Yet when I make the assertion that God does exist, you say things like...an apple cannot be cut with a non-existent knife. That same non-existent knife of which you speak now was a non-existent plane then. Do you see my point? Just because the subject at hand is not a visible entity to our eyes in this time continuum, does not dismiss the viability of its existence.
âResponse: You have no empirical proof that any supernatural act written about in the Bible actually occured. Neither does anyone else.âSee...this is where IMO you contradict yourself somewhat. When you accept that the observations of scientists are correct in regards to the phenomenaâs they ascribe to have witnessed in their theorizing, by which they base their conclusions and factual evidence, you are professing a belief in the empirical proof they have submitted as factual evidence.
The point is...these are witnesses to observations, based on philosophies they profess, and subsequently, as a result of numerous observations in their empirical studies...they conclude that what they observed is factual.
Likewise, I can offer you numerous witnesses to empirical observations, based on a different set of philosophies/criteria, which also have submitted conclusions on the phenomenaâs they witnessed as well. Empirical proof that is just as factual, as the observations of those witnesses you choose to listen to. Again...itâs a matter of choice/belief according to the philosophy you ascribe to. The difference is...I think I can provide you with more witnesses from more vast and different corners of the earth, who all confess the same thing. The problem with the empirical proof you ascribe to...is that your witnesses are forever in disagreement, and disproving each otherâs theories. Ours has been consistently the same for centuries, much like the âcosmic constantâ you refer to is. Thatâs because we know Who that cosmic constant is.
First, letâs start with the bible: A book that is unparalleled in its internal continuity. It has 66 separate books written over a time span of 1500 years (1400 B.C â 90 A.D) by more than 40 different authors from different walks of life. For example:
Moses â political leader
David â warrior/king
Amos â farmer
Daniel â prime minister
Luke â doctor
Peter â fisherman
Matthew â tax collector
These 40 different authors came from 3 different continents: Asia, Africa and Europe; spoke 3 different languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and wrote in diverse literary styles which included: poetry, historical narrative, song, personal correspondence, biography, autobiography, allegory, romance, satire...
The number one theme to which they all testified to...was Godâs redemption of mankind, and spoke on many controversial themes; yet all of their writings were devoid of contradictions and had amazing continuity. All testified as to direct physical and/or empirical contact with a living God.
From wikipedia: Experience as a general concept comprises knowledge of or skill in or observation of some thing or some event gained through involvement in or exposure to that thing or event. The history of the word experience aligns it closely with the concept of experiment.
The bible is a book of repeat experiments/experiences with a living God. Itâs reported by witnesses who are all scientists of one degree or another as science is any system of "objective" knowledge. None of these people/witnesses, by profession, were biased. They came from all walks of life, and all experienced and verified the same thing.
If one were to look at their experiences as a whole...one could say that a great scientific experiment was done, concluding in the reality of Godâs existence, because there is repeated observations of the same dynamic...different variables each time, but the outcome is the same testimony from totally different witnesses in extremely different locations and time periods. Howâs that for measurability? Can you tell me the same on your side of the coin? Can you tell me that you have as many witnesses from as many places and backgrounds that can verify without contradictions the phenomena that you ascribe to as factual evidence?
âI seek diversion from a really boring job. I enjoy a good argument. I do seek answers, but I filter all information through the screen of verifiability.
That's it. No mystery -- no magic.âA boring job? Why...I thought for sure that you must be one of the three here: independently wealthy, disabled, or retired; because it seems you have so much available free time to debate in here. lol If itâs not too personal, what kind of job results in such levels of boredom and free time? Peace.
1. I do not dismiss the viability of God's existence. I dismiss the testability of God's existence. God is definitionally beyond any possible test. If this were not the case, God would be a part of the natural universe, and thus God would not be God. As soon as you can scientifically measure something, you are on your way to being able to model it, and then duplicate it. Thus, if we can measure God, scientifically, then we can become God.
The real God, if He exists, would be beyond any possible measure. Whereas, if there's a place where I can't fly today, but I maybe able to fly tomorrow, that place's location can be scientifically measured. The inside of a black hole is beyond our current measurement, but the event horizon surrounding that black hole is ascertainable and its measurement can be repeated.
The location of Heaven is unknown and definitionally unknowable. There is no scientific experiment which would permit us to define its event horizon. If there were, we would be on our way to building our own Heaven, and eliminating the need for God's.
2. I shouldn't have used the word "empirical," in isolation, because it's not sufficient, by itself. The difference between religous witnessing and scientific witnessing, is that scientific witnessing must be verifiable via repeatable experiment. If 50 people say that they saw the Virgin Mary walking across the law of the church, that may satisfy the Pope, but it won't satisfy a peer-reviewed scientific publication, because unless you can repeat this observation under controlled conditions so as to confirm it, the witnessing is not scientific.
3. Re my job, as you may have noticed, providing information which would permit you to determine who I am for a certainty, without using a subpoena, is fraught with peril. So, I decline the invitation to provide further information in this area. I hope you understand.
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
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
I hate to fight this battle all over again with someone who hasn't the decency of reading all the previous posts before joining the discussion. I would simply point out, that the theory of gravity is considered old hat, and the quantum theoy is already accepted norm in science today. The fact that the two cannot be unified in a single theory, does not mean that each one is not valid by itself.
Please, don't expose your ignorance here. If you want to contribute to the science side of the discussion, at least educate yourself of the basic facts.
If you confine your discussion to religion, then I won't object. But don't pretend that you know something about science, like jem and z10 did in this thread, only generating laughable posts such as z10's snowflake self, and jem's quantum rocket.
The continued cheap shots on this thread are stunning. I hereby state I do not have to respond to cheap shots and my non response should not be construed as an admission.
first off you were the one citing probability theory who compared generals winning major battles to coin flips.
as far as my quantum rockets are concerned are you saying quantum theory is not used in the the design of semiconductors.
And finally I have never held myself out as an expert. That is why I cite the best minds in physics to support my argument that there is evidence for design. Mind you top astronomers like Davies and Greenstreet are not religious men. (at least according to me research) yet then find the evidence compelling enough to write books and papers on the evidence of design.
I understand your position, but it is an argument from authority, and since no one is really an authority on the beginning of the universe, it is a logical fallacy IMO, because all such arguments pro or con from the perspective of scientists are arguments from ignorance. For each authority you put up, the non design puts up another "authority" and it becomes like a trial process of expert witnesses, not a logic based argumentation process.
Look no one even knows if the universe is limited or unlimited, if there is actually a beginning or an end, no one knows of the center of the universe, or if there even is a center of the universe, everything human beings know via empirical measure is limited by limited instrumentation of the human mind and our ability to observe being possibly severely flawed for multiple reasons, firstly because our instrumentation itself is limited, human mind is flawed by nature, and we are within the universe guessing what is the source of the universe itself...it is impossible to obtain anything even resembling objectivity when you are function as a part within a system trying to comment on that system. Science is a history of revision of theories as instrumentation changes or new ideas come forth. There is no way to remove the subjective nature of inhabitants of the universe, as they are under the constraints and forces of the laws of nature of the universe, where the source of the universe may be of an entirely different. We don't even know if the laws of nature existed prior to the so called big bang, or if they were created by a so called big bang, as we would have no way of measuring anything before a so called big bang, and we are bound to use the laws of nature themselves in our observations and calculations. Really, it is people grasping for something to believe in, and those who are atheistic, seek answers that are atheistic, theists take the road of theism.
I understand you are trying to counter the non design proponents by suggesting some particular scientists may have a pro design opinion, or think the universe appears designed to human mind, but it is meaningless to me what ignorant scientists and non scientists think about the origin of the universe, it is meaningless what the majority of scientists think or don't think, and logically, it is all based on fallacious thinking and arguments from ignorance anyway.
I know it seems impossible, but it is possible for me to think design, and not to think the non design thinkers are wrong necessarily. It is after, just a point of view within the universe, not from outside of the universe, so who can say?
My beef is with the dogmatists on either side, and I do see dogmatists on both the theistic and atheistic side of the argument.
If you really want to use a spell checker, which of course only works if we remember to use it, download the Google Toolbar for Firefox, it has a good spell checker built into it. It even underlines the words as you type them if they appear misspelled to the spell checker, so there is a reminder to run the spell check program.
Anyway, those who focus on spelling or grammar as more important than content, really aren't interested in content, or are using spelling and grammar errors as a way of avoiding the content in a post.
The resident grammar checkers and spell checkers know who they are, and if that is the best they can do to add to the discussion....oh well.
p.s. Someone can misrepresent your position without actually lying, they could just be confused of your position. It doesn't matter to me if you call someone a liar, I don't care, but apparently some people really get disturbed by it. The only time I got actually perturbed by someone calling me a liar was in the chat room, as they were saying I did not make the trades I said I was making, and I quickly produced a snapshot of the trades I was making and they apologized, and all was forgiven and forgotten.
Look no one even knows if the universe is limited or unlimited, if there is actually a beginning or an end, no one knows of the center of the universe, or if there even is a center of the universe, everything human beings know via empirical measure is limited by limited instrumentation of the human mind and our ability to observe being possibly severely flawed for multiple reasons, firstly because our instrumentation itself is limited, human mind is flawed by nature, and we are within the universe guessing what is the source of the universe itself...it is impossible to obtain anything even resembling objectivity when you are function as a part within a system trying to comment on that system. Science is a history of revision of theories as instrumentation changes or new ideas come forth. There is no way to remove the subjective nature of inhabitants of the universe, as they are under the constraints and forces of the laws of nature of the universe, where the source of the universe may be of an entirely different. We don't even know if the laws of nature existed prior to the so called big bang, or if they were created by a so called big bang, as we would have no way of measuring anything before a so called big bang, and we are bound to use the laws of nature themselves in our observations and calculations. Really, it is people grasping for something to believe in, and those who are atheistic, seek answers that are atheistic, theists take the road of theism.
I understand you are trying to counter the non design proponents by suggesting some particular scientists may have a pro design opinion, or think the universe appears designed to human mind, but it is meaningless to me what ignorant scientists and non scientists think about the origin of the universe, it is meaningless what the majority of scientists think or don't think, and logically, it is all based on fallacious thinking and arguments from ignorance anyway.
I know it seems impossible, but it is possible for me to think design, and not to think the non design thinkers are wrong necessarily. It is after, just a point of view within the universe, not from outside of the universe, so who can say?
My beef is with the dogmatists on either side, and I do see dogmatists on both the theistic and atheistic side of the argument.
If you really want to use a spell checker, which of course only works if we remember to use it, download the Google Toolbar for Firefox, it has a good spell checker built into it. It even underlines the words as you type them if they appear misspelled to the spell checker, so there is a reminder to run the spell check program.
Anyway, those who focus on spelling or grammar as more important than content, really aren't interested in content, or are using spelling and grammar errors as a way of avoiding the content in a post.
The resident grammar checkers and spell checkers know who they are, and if that is the best they can do to add to the discussion....oh well.
p.s. Someone can misrepresent your position without actually lying, they could just be confused of your position. It doesn't matter to me if you call someone a liar, I don't care, but apparently some people really get disturbed by it. The only time I got actually perturbed by someone calling me a liar was in the chat room, as they were saying I did not make the trades I said I was making, and I quickly produced a snapshot of the trades I was making and they apologized, and all was forgiven and forgotten.
Quote from jem:
zzz my position is that some respected scientists say that the universe looks designed.
I make the appeal to authority because top scientists are virtually the only ones who can competently examine the data, apply the high level math and offer credible conclusions in this subject area.
by the way the spell checker does not work.
I called someone a liar after he misrepresented my positon.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
human mind is flawed by nature
lol... yes, and we're all born sinners, because of that damn snake and apple thing.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Anyway, those who focus on spelling or grammar as more important than content, really aren't interested in content
Goes directly to content, when the member in question is claiming to have made an exhaustive review of the written material being cited (or sited!!) by others.
In this case it was shown that the member did not actually read a text which he was claiming to have read, He simply found a quote on the net and pasted it in.
You're just bitter because you're one of those who has been outed as semi-literate here.
Once again I say, I do not believe literacy is a necessary prerequisite for trading success.
I only believe that you actually trade because others who despise you have admitted it.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
I understand your position, but it is an argument from authority, and since no one is really an authority on the beginning of the universe, it is a logical fallacy IMO, because all such arguments pro or con from the perspective of scientists are arguments from ignorance. For each authority you put up, the non design puts up another "authority" and it becomes like a trial process of expert witnesses, not a logic based argumentation process.
Look no one even knows if the universe is limited or unlimited, if there is actually a beginning or an end, no one knows of the center of the universe, or if there even is a center of the universe, everything human beings know via empirical measure is limited by limited instrumentation of the human mind and our ability to observe being possibly severely flawed for multiple reasons, firstly because our instrumentation itself is limited, human mind is flawed by nature, and we are within the universe guessing what is the source of the universe itself...it is impossible to obtain anything even resembling objectivity when you are function as a part within a system trying to comment on that system. Science is a history of revision of theories as instrumentation changes or new ideas come forth. There is no way to remove the subjective nature of inhabitants of the universe, as they are under the constraints and forces of the laws of nature of the universe, where the source of the universe may be of an entirely different. We don't even know if the laws of nature existed prior to the so called big bang, or if they were created by a so called big bang, as we would have no way of measuring anything before a so called big bang, and we are bound to use the laws of nature themselves in our observations and calculations. Really, it is people grasping for something to believe in, and those who are atheistic, seek answers that are atheistic, theists take the road of theism.
I understand you are trying to counter the non design proponents by suggesting some particular scientists may have a pro design opinion, or think the universe appears designed to human mind, but it is meaningless to me what ignorant scientists and non scientists think about the origin of the universe, it is meaningless what the majority of scientists think or don't think, and logically, it is all based on fallacious thinking and arguments from ignorance anyway.
I know it seems impossible, but it is possible for me to think design, and not to think the non design thinkers are wrong necessarily. It is after, just a point of view within the universe, not from outside of the universe, so who can say?
My beef is with the dogmatists on either side, and I do see dogmatists on both the theistic and atheistic side of the argument.
If you really want to use a spell checker, which of course only works if we remember to use it, download the Google Toolbar for Firefox, it has a good spell checker built into it. It even underlines the words as you type them if they appear misspelled to the spell checker, so there is a reminder to run the spell check program.
Anyway, those who focus on spelling or grammar as more important than content, really aren't interested in content, or are using spelling and grammar errors as a way of avoiding the content in a post.
The resident grammar checkers and spell checkers know who they are, and if that is the best they can do to add to the discussion....oh well.
p.s. Someone can misrepresent your position without actually lying, they could just be confused of your position. It doesn't matter to me if you call someone a liar, I don't care, but apparently some people really get disturbed by it. The only time I got actually perturbed by someone calling me a liar was in the chat room, as they were saying I did not make the trades I said I was making, and I quickly produced a snapshot of the trades I was making and they apologized, and all was forgiven and forgotten.
I pretty much concur with this post. Only divine intervention could explain this occurrence.
Well, I think from your point of view, as I understand it, anything that cannot currently be measured or understood or proved by current science falls into the category of magic, but I wouldn't go so far as to say Divine as the foundation of design necessarily from a purely logical point of view. There are other possible logical explanations that do not depend on something Divine, as Divine is typically defined. Clearly though, if the universe is by design, it is by some property or power we do not have the ability to know or measure at present, and as scientific discovery is not a complete and finished human enterprise having reached full knowledge, my point is that conclusive arguments are therefore arguments from ignorance.
I have my personal opinions and beliefs, but logically, there need not be a Divine explanation at all for a universe being by design.
I have my personal opinions and beliefs, but logically, there need not be a Divine explanation at all for a universe being by design.
Quote from kjkent1:
I pretty much concur with this post. Only divine intervention could explain this occurrence.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
but logically, there need not be a Divine explanation at all for a universe being by design.
It's either God or Space Aliens, Z. No way around that one. There are no other theories of the origin of life on earth that could involve 'Intelligent Design'.
And we know your theory - you believe that life on earth originated when 'Magistrates were materialized out of pure potentiality'.
Or did you recant that one after facing withering pressure to explain it? It's hard to keep track of what you are claiming to believe from week to week.
If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever.
Quote from jem:
1. Tweedle dee and tweedle dumb have been reduced to arguing about typos.
2. KJs argument has been reduced to rubble so now he has been reduced to arguing about whether I own Susskinds book.
Quote from jem:
The continued cheap shots on this thread are stunning...
Indeed...
Quote from traderNik:
lol... yes, and we're all born sinners, because of that damn snake and apple thing.
Goes directly to content, when the member in question is claiming to have made an exhaustive review of the written material being cited (or sited!!) by others.
In this case it was shown that the member did not actually read a text which he was claiming to have read, He simply found a quote on the net and pasted it in.
You're just bitter because you're one of those who has been outed as semi-literate here.
Once again I say, I do not believe literacy is a necessary prerequisite for trading success.
I only believe that you actually trade because others who despise you have admitted it.
What the hell are you talking about making claims to have read things I did not read. Show me once where I claimed to have read something I did not. There was no reason for me to make such a claim.
I gave numerous links to Susskind's quotes about his book, inter alia, from his interviews, from the introduction to the book (which is on the net in its entirety) and book reviews by professors of physics and well as respected scientific journals.
You manifest a reading comprehension problem.