What price religion?

[LongShot]

Quote from ElCubano:

the bottomless pit......there need not be a precise definition of "GOD" to enjoy ones faith...Do you believe in love??? I can almost guarantee we may have different definitions of love; this does not mean you or i can't believe in it or enjoy it...peace

Brilliant rebuttal! You should be a professional debater or a lawyer. :-/

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from Turok:

>And I can't believe you're missing this point:
>intricate design, as far as we know, does not
>happen w/o outside intelligence. This universe
>displays intricate design therefore one can
>assume intelligence.

I get the point that YOU believe the above statement to be true, but if your point is that I must accept it as fact rather than opinion then I guess your right...I don't get it (and proudly don't get it).

I find snowflakes to be quite intricate and yet I don't hold the belief that intelligence went into their design. I find cloudstreets quite intricate and am intrigued at how these patterns form over flat terrain and even water without the benefit of wind. There are a lot of things that appear quite intricate in design that don't pique my interest in higher intelligence. That's just where we're different.

>Or even if you do not make that assumption, one
>cannot reasonably rule out outside intelligence.

I pretty much agree with you here (I don't rule is out personally), but I do understand that everyone has the vacuum limit somewhere (meaning in the absence of evidence...) and mine may be higher than some.

To use the words from one of my favorite bumper stickers. "I don't know and you don't either" (thanks Jack)

JB

Yes, if people would just word it this way, I'd be in total agreement.

 

[axeman]

"there need not be a precise definition of "GOD" to enjoy ones faith..."

Strawman. The issue is NOT that a definition is needed to
"enjoy ones faith". This issue is, does god EXIST.

As for love... I agree, we probably have very different definitions,
and yet we can all agree that we believe in love.

But what does this tell us? Nothing. Its nearly useless since
we have NO IDEA if we are in fact talking about the same thing.

We can both believe in blorgrats, but if a blorgrat is a tree
by your definition and a blorgrat is a car by mine, who gives
a rats ass.

Failing to properly define what a blorgrat IS
before it is formally debated would be a serious error.


peace

axeman

Quote from ElCubano:

the bottomless pit......there need not be a precise definition of "GOD" to enjoy ones faith...Do you believe in love??? I can almost guarantee we may have different definitions of love; this does not mean you or i can't believe in it or enjoy it...peace

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from axeman:

Shoeshine...

Read the book "The blind watchmaker".

Specifically.... look at the section where the author
uses a computer program to simulate evolutionary process.
He creates little entities called biomorphs to showcase
the power of cumulative selection.

A random number generator (mutations) coupled with the ability
to "pass on" genes, **creates** a vast assortment of
computer generated bugs, plants and aliens which you would look
at and proclaim "definitely requires intelligent design", when
in fact, there was none at all.

After a mere 100 generations... its amazing what pops up
out of randomness coupled with cumulative selection.

This little biomoprh experiment proves that things which
LOOK to be intelligently designed, in no way require
any kind of intelligence at all.

A simpler example is clouds. Ever see a horse or a smiling
face in a cloud? Purely random, and yet we PERCEIVE great
order and design in a nearly random system.
How about ink blots??? What do you see?

You are confusing your human pattern matching abilities
with "design".

A creator or intelligent design is not required for things to exist
which may LOOK intelligently designed to YOU.
The above examples prove this.

With the complete absence of evidence/proof of a creator,
there simply is no rational reason to believe so, especially
when we have many other concrete cases which show its
not only possible to perceive design where there is none,
but in fact ITS QUITE COMMON.

The simple notion that it "looks designed", does not constitute
any kind of evidence at all, since we are already aware of many
cases where it does not. Many random systems LOOK designed
to us as well.


peace

axeman

I don't see how that applies in this case. This is a simple numerical sequence as opposed to pattern recognition.

This is more like operating a sophisticated zoo exhibit. Your job is to walk into a room of 50 analog meters and tweak them all to the specs your boss has given you.

You know that the readings on the meters must read the following 4+1.001, 6.25+-.0025, 45.78+-.11, etc for your animal to survive. To your amazement, you find that every meter came right out of the package perfectly tweaked to keep the animal alive.

Do you assume it was just coincidence?

 

[spect8or]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

How you raise your kids or I raise my I raiise my kids is not relevant. What I am saying is that it's yet another "coincidence" that the biblical view of how to raise a family is the one that matches with the statistical evidence.

Does this prove God? Of course not, but it's yet another coincidence and is yet one more thing that challenges the arrogance of most of the early part of this thread.

Why do you do this Shiner?

This has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING we are talking about.

Are you honestly claiming that nobody would have EVER thought of raising a family with a mother and father teaching their kids good moral habits unless the Bible pointed it out? That is ABSURD.

That this universe may have been created has got NOTHING to do with what are the best child rearing practices. You are CONFLATING -- get it CONFLATING -- "creator" and (biblical) "God".

Are you aware of some of the other concepts of social organization the bible advises? Like the fact that it is OKAY with slavery, for example? Should the fact that slavery is, today, regarded as vile, evil, backward be used as evidence against your "creator" then?

 

[spect8or]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

I don't see how that applies in this case.

No you don't see huh? Gee, why aren't I surprised.

Have you read the book? If not why not? Isn't this issue close to your heart? Do you not wish to understand what scientific methods have to say about the "amazing coincidences" that you claim exist?

A man is walking down the street. A gust of wind begins to blow and a shingle from a roof above falls and strikes him on the head, killing him.

Look at all the factors that must have been EXACTLY as they were for this to have happened. The man must have been walking down PRECISELY this street (out of dozens or hundreds), at precisely the speed he was walking at, the gust of wind had to gather at precisely that time, that very shingle had to be precisely as loose as it was, etc. No way could this have happened accidently. A higher power must have been involved!
(I'm paraphrasing someone else's example here, can't remember who wrot the original.)

 

[axeman]

It applies perfectly. You simply insist on continuing to
call the sky PINK.

You use the same old debunked analogies over and over again.

Your saying nothing more than:

WOW... isnt it amazing, that the universe spawned life
which can exist in the universe which spawned it.

Ummmm shoeshine... there is NOTHING amazing about this at all.

Ive shown several examples of where humans easily PERCEIVE
order where there is NONE. This is all you are doing.
You haven not provided a shred of evidence that it is anything
beyond this.


peace

axeman

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

I don't see how that applies in this case. This is a simple numerical sequence as opposed to pattern recognition.

This is more like operating a sophisticated zoo exhibit. Your job is to walk into a room of 50 analog meters and tweak them all to the specs your boss has given you.

You know that the readings on the meters must read the following 4+1.001, 6.25+-.0025, 45.78+-.11, etc for you To your amazement, you find that every meter came right out of the package perfectly tweaked to keep the animal alive.

Do you assume it was just coincidence?

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from spect8or:

No you don't see huh? Gee, why aren't I surprised.

Have you read the book? If not why not? Isn't this issue close to your heart? Do you not wish to understand what scientific methods have to say about the "amazing coincidences" that you claim exist?

A man is walking down the street. A gust of wind begins to blow and a shingle from a roof above falls and strikes him on the head, killing him.

Look at all the factors that must have been EXACTLY as they were for this to have happened. The man must have been walking down PRECISELY this street (out of dozens or hundreds), at precisely the speed he was walking at, the gust of wind had to gather at precisely that time, that very shingle had to be precisely as loose as it was, etc. No way could this have happened accidently. A higher power must have been involved!
(I'm paraphrasing someone else's example here, can't remember who wrot the original.)

Okay, if that's the argument, then I understand. Axe and others have repeated that ad infinitum.

And for the 100th time I will say this: I'm not trying to prove God with this. I am willing to admit I can't do that.

Going to your example: you cannot prove someone did not throw the tile off the roof any more than I can prove someone did.

 

[Turok]

>We can both believe in blorgrats, but if a
>blorgrat is a tree by your definition and a
>blorgrat is a car by mine, who gives
>a rats ass.

Or a blorgrat's ass for that matter.

JB

 

[spect8or]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Okay, if that's the argument, then I understand. Axe and others have repeated that ad infinitum.

And for the 100th time I will say this: I'm not trying to prove God with this. I am willing to admit I can't do that.

Going to your example: you cannot prove someone did not throw the tile off the roof any more than I can prove someone did.

Shiner, that wasn't the point of the example.

The example just showed how a normal event of a shingle falling from a roof and killing someone could be spun into a tale of "amazing coincedences", too great to have happened by chance alone. You don't really believe anything "supernatural" occurred, do you? It really was just a case of "bad luck" for the poor guy, you understand? (I hope so!)

I have no idea where you got the someone throwing it at him from.

I included that example because that is very much what you are doing with your design "arguments" (assertions, really).