Religion/Spirituality The Intelligent Design/God/Theism Thread

[blackzeus]

hes acting like the vatican did with galileo. or better yet he should change his name to Robespierre

napoleon i recant. evolution and nothing else okay? dont send me to the guillotine

He's got a mental Iron Maiden reserved for your heretic azz

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

No @Napoleon Esq., 9 billion people jumpin up 10 inches at the same time most certainly doesn't substantiate a creator, but it does substantiate it's not a chance occurrence, that's the f*ckin' point of the analogy. You saying it's possible for objects billions of light years away observing the same laws to be a chance occurrence is the same as saying 9 billion people jumping up at approximately the same time is a chance occurrence, it's the same f*cking statistical impossibility.

no you bloody c*nt. You can not say this.

Speaking in absolutes is whats killing you right now, so you'd best learn from now to stop doing it.

It COULD be a chance occurrence.

Because out of 9 billion is the number 1 and however unlikely the event, the fact that it happened does not mean it was impossible.

Things that are impossible do not have fractions.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I'm done in here.

If your argument is: "it seems impossible, therefore god did it" then we're fukking done here.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

He's got a mental Iron Maiden reserved for your heretic azz

 

[Mission249]

Thanks for the response.

When I say Intelligent Design, I do not mean to imply either of those assumptions. Some others may or may not. In my concept of intelligent design..its almost as if whatever caused/created/designed Everything included processes that are precisely and scientifically defined to unfold itself almost like an algorithm in a computer program etc. I see what youre saying about lack of definition...but I am more-so implying "not at all random" throughout the Universe rather than "not Evolution" or "more complex [necessarily] than Evolution." (or natural selection/adaptation etc)

Perhaps im not 'by the book' on ID with that but I believe in the general concept far more than randomness

Oh, ok. Thank you for being more specific. Be careful when describing your world view as "intelligent design". It has a history of being an "anti-evolution" term - factually incorrect. Your world view seems to be more about the idea of a "fined tuned universe": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
Which is more oh a philosophical question than scientific, and far more interesting to me. The problem with this discussion is that it's proponents need to be more specific about what we're talking about instead of following @blackzeus down that path of equivocations, conflation of random, immature thoughts and ideas, logical fallacies and psuedo-scientific blather. You seem to understand basic reasoning when it's presented to you so I can engage:

A problem with the ego-centrism of humanity is that we tend to think the universe adapted to us instead of us adapting to the universe. We see randomness, and our ability to observe it, and subsequently anthropomorphize the universe's creation. Have you heard the story of the sentient puddle?

 

[blackzeus]

no you bloody c*nt. You can not say this.

Speaking in absolutes is whats killing you right now, so you'd best learn from now to stop doing it.

It COULD be a chance occurrence.

Because out of 9 billion is the number 1 and however unlikely the event, the fact that it happened does not mean it was impossible.

Things that are impossible do not have fractions.

To the outside observer, the I think the more accurate observation is that it's killing YOU Be an atheist, mock creation theory, and mock the unwillingness to accept statistical impossibilities, and not realize the ironies in your thought processes brehs

 

[blackzeus]

Oh, ok. Thank you for being more specific. Be careful when describing your world view as "intelligent design". It has a history of being an "anti-evolution" term - factually incorrect. Your world view seems to be more about the idea of a "fined tuned universe": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
Which is more oh a philosophical question than scientific, and far more interesting to me. The problem with this discussion is that it's proponents need to be more specific about what we're talking about instead of following @blackzeus down that path of equivocations, conflation of random, immature thoughts and ideas, logical fallacies and psuedo-scientific blather. You seem to understand basic reasoning when it's presented to you so I can engage:

A problem with the ego-centrism of humanity is that we tend to think the universe adapted to us instead of us adapting to the universe. We see randomness, and our ability to observe it, and subsequently anthropomorphize the universe's creation. Have you heard the story of the sentient puddle?

Frankly I have no words. Nikka used the word "immature" in a thread where only facts and statistical probabilities have been presented. Now I understand what the Dark Ages must have felt like Yes, brehs, by using statistics and facts, I have attributed God/human like attributes to the Universe's creation Yes, these atheists want us to believe in the statistically improbable, yet mock faith

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Oh, ok. Thank you for being more specific. Be careful when describing your world view as "intelligent design". It has a history of being an "anti-evolution" term - factually incorrect. Your world view seems to be more about the idea of a "fined tuned universe": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
Which is more oh a philosophical question than scientific, and far more interesting to me. The problem with this discussion is that it's proponents need to be more specific about what we're talking about instead of following @blackzeus down that path of equivocations, conflation of random, immature thoughts and ideas, logical fallacies and psuedo-scientific blather. You seem to understand basic reasoning when it's presented to you so I can engage:

A problem with the ego-centrism of humanity is that we tend to think the universe adapted to us instead of us adapting to the universe. We see randomness, and our ability to observe it, and subsequently anthropomorphize the universe's creation. Have you heard the story of the sentient puddle?

Correct. I have a more extensive background in philosophy than science so I suppose I lean in that direction a bit in this (although I do incorporate science/math etc into my belief system). I do not claim to be an expert in science or mathematics so I have refrained from really engaging on much of that specific back and forth..I am aware of a bunch of the ratios/constants and have (i guess) a decent base knowledge but not enough to really go into it like that. In philosophy however, a bunch of logic/probability etc is used (obviously) so that is more up my alley than the nuts and bolts. Epistemology was in college.

Im familiar with fine tuned universe theory and it is very similar but I think it has too many constraints within it for me to claim it over Quantum Multiverse. Obviously neither of which may be falsifiable but I dont really think that should be a key variable in negating my beliefs on this subject since I dont really think the subject as a whole is falsifiable..which is part of the reason why im kinda perplexed at the vitriol in here.

Thanks for the link. I think I have heard the phrase but I do not recall seeing that exact video. Ill watch it on my phone after the football game ends.

 

[Mission249]

Frankly I have no words. Nikka used the word "immature" in a thread where only facts and statistical probabilities have been presented. Now I understand what the Dark Ages must have felt like Yes, brehs, by using statistics and facts, I have attributed God/human like attributes to the Universe's creation

Typical. You pick out on random, throwaway word to respond to and ignore the rest of a cogent discussion. That's that I mean by your thoughts being "immature". Not fully formed. Shallow. Your response just makes me point.

 

[blackzeus]

^^^What does this have to do with ID? ID doesn't claim anything about the reason behind ID, just that we exist because of it

 

[blackzeus]

Typical. You pick out on random, throwaway word to respond to and ignore the rest of a cogent discussion. That's that I mean by your thoughts being "immature". Not fully formed. Shallow. Your response just makes me point.

Yes you're right, I should have mentioned that it's a bit cheeky to be an atheist and state that arguing for statistical probabilities is fallacious, hopefully you feel better now

 

[Mission249]

Correct. I have a more extensive background in philosophy than science so I suppose I lean in that direction a bit in this (although I do incorporate science/math etc into my belief system). I do not claim to be an expert in science or mathematics so I have refrained from really engaging on much of that specific back and forth..I am aware of a bunch of the ratios/constants and have (i guess) a decent base knowledge but not enough to really go into it like that. In philosophy however, a bunch of logic/probability etc is used (obviously) so that is more up my alley than the nuts and bolts. Epistemology was in college.

Im familiar with fine tuned universe theory and it is very similar but I think it has too many constraints within it for me to claim it over Quantum Multiverse. Obviously neither of which may be falsifiable but I dont really think that should be a key variable in negating my beliefs on this subject since I dont really think the subject as a whole is falsifiable..which is part of the reason why im kinda perplexed at the vitriol in here.

Thanks for the link. I think I have heard the phrase but I do not recall seeing that exact video. Ill watch it on my phone after the football game ends.

Hmm, I think the vitriol coming from some people is basically because @blackzeus doesn't seem to understand basic logic. If we were just having the philosophical debate the we ended up discovering was the heart of the issue, I'm sure it would be a much more productive and interesting convo. Instead we have @blackzeus running around screaming about "1MB of random walk. plant DNA. physical constants across the universe. atheists are ridiculous!!" etc. You don't follow because it doesn't make sense. It's what happens when an intellectual light-weight convinces himself he knows what he's talking about. I can refute these things on a point by point basis but since he's utterly convinced he just ignores and pivots to a grab bag of random, shallow arguments instead of seeing any of his arguments to their logical conclusions. I can talk about genetic and functional programming: showing that simple building blocks can easily compose into arbitrarily complex systems and he'll just say something like "But but but...explain the constants across the universe?!". Then follow it with a bunch of emoticons. It's a strange kind of willful ignorance that makes me think he's just trolling everyone.

Right now he's on some bent about calling me an atheist just cause I'm pointing out his reasoning is all wrong. I'm not even an atheist. See what I mean?

^^^What does this have to do with ID? ID doesn't claim anything about the reason behind ID, just that we exist because of it

It has little to do with intelligent design. It was an argument against the "fine tuned universe" idea. I've deduced that you were incorrectly conflating those two ideas and decided to refute the later since it was more in line with what VMR was thinking. Once again you fail basic reading comprehension.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

@Mission249 just watched video. i cant disagree with his moral to the story but i personally do not feel that the earth was created for me or solely for humans etc.

First of all, the earth is an incredibly tiny portion of Everything...and humans, while "dominant" per se are still a tiny portion of the Earth. Who knows what other galaxies or (possibly) other Universes hold. While theorized, there has yet to be an example of homosapien or similar life elsewhere. I personally believe the odds are strong enough to say that other "intelligent" beings exist...but even if there wasnt itd be absurd to say the Universe was built for us. So while Humans have ascended to dominance on Earth and outof the food chain here, that doesnt necessarily mean that Earth was designed specifically for us. It was designed. Thats all. Our dominance is a part of a cycle that likely wont continue forever. Weve yet to usurp the dinosaurs in time on top and bacteria and viruses probably have it better here than us long term lol.

In any event, i agree that humans have adapted to the surroundings of Earth over time and not the other way around...I do not think that makes me change my overall stance on this. I do not adhere to fine tuned universe really, as i said, because its too specific and full of constraints IMO..and I think that video has more to do with morals and ego than anything else.

 

[blackzeus]

Hmm, I think the vitriol coming from some people is basically because @blackzeus doesn't seem to understand basic logic. If we were just having the philosophical debate the we ended up discovering was the heart of the issue, I'm sure it would be a much more productive and interesting convo. Instead we have @blackzeus running around screaming about "1MB of random walk. plant DNA. physical constants across the universe. atheists are ridiculous!!" etc. You don't follow because it doesn't make sense. It's what happens when an intellectual light-weight convinces himself he knows what he's talking about. I can refute these things on a point by point basis but since he's utterly convinced he just ignores and pivots to a grab bag of random, shallow arguments instead of seeing any of his arguments to their logical conclusions. I can talk about genetic and functional programming: showing that simple building blocks can easily compose into arbitrarily complex systems and he'll just say something like "But but but...explain the constants across the universe?!". Then follow it with a bunch of emoticons. It's a strange kind of willful ignorance that makes me think he's just trolling everyone.

Right now he's on some bent about calling me an atheist just cause I'm pointing out his reasoning is all wrong. I'm not even an atheist. See what I mean?

1) "running around screaming". You must have not read the first 3-4 pages clearly outlining the typical arguments against ID, of which you presented imperfect design, which was already discussed in post #34. I'm sorry, @Napoleon got me dyin' over here because he started talking about how statistics has nothing to do with observation, and from there it steadily got worse and worse

2) OK buddy, you're right, I'm an intellectual lightweight. Clearly complexity is beyond my understanding, and my analogy of randomness not being able to make a functional string out of 1MB making it statistically impossible that randomness is responsible for the creation of life as we know it is also fallacious. So with those assumptions, I have the following questions for you, so that perhaps we can clarify my "misunderstandings"

3) Is there no relation between complexity and randomness? Meaning can it be A) possible that an object be complex and be random? B) Can it be statistically probable that an object be complex and random? I separated into two parts because I didn't want you to accuse me of asking a loaded question.

4) What are the implications of order in relation to randomness? E.g. if something is done in an orderly fashion, if there is an orderly relation between separate entities, what does that imply about the randomness of said orderly relation between said separate entities. E.g. what do the orbits of the planets imply about the randomness of our galaxy. Of course you are also free to use your own examples, that's just one off the top of my head

5) Why is it logical to believe in statistical impossibility like creation from randomness (not a loaded question), and illogical to believe in the statistical possibility of ID (again, not a loaded question, stating what is actually the case)?

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

@blackzeus DOING THE GISH GALLOP, @Napoleon BEING A c*nt, IT'S YOUR STANDARD HIGHER LEARNING RELIGION THREAD, BROTHER!