OK...so just accept that you're woefully under equipped to contribute to the debate on the virtue that you think your philosophy has more leverage than actual...science.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 wasin 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.
Religion/Spirituality The Intelligent Design/God/Theism Thread
- Thread starter blackzeus
- Start date
Gish Gallop? Did you not peruse the first 4 pages brother?! How is it possible that 4 pages of succinct arguments concerning ID is a torrid of small arguments?
So in essence, I am just supposed to accept the evolutionary theory and atheism? 
Break down the finer points of a theory, give concrete examples, statistical probabilities, and have all that be called fallacious brothers!Life is too complicated for you. God must have done it.#dualities #irony #talkaboutlivinginaglasshouse...
Get lost dumbass
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)?
@Napoleon , @Mission249 , @Hollywood Hogan let's flip the script, I will be the student, y'all can be the teachers, please answer the above quoted questions 3-5 for me, so we can get down to the root of the "fallacies", and expose the "erroneous" arguments of ID for what they are
I'm not going to waste my time@Napoleon , @Mission249 , @Hollywood Hogan let's flip the script, I will be the student, y'all can be the teachers, please answer the above quoted questions 3-5 for me, so we can get down to the root of the "fallacies", and expose the "erroneous" arguments of ID for what they are
There are free courses online, and formal ones you can take at your local community college.
Post in a thread that has nothing to do with your beliefs, sh*t on the premise, the proofs, the statistical probabilities, and the logic, claim it's all fallacious, then make erroneous claims yourself, then claim it's a waste of time to confirm what the actual errors are in the thread's main premise, then claim life is too complicated for the other party as your closing argument brehs
#appealtoauthority #allhailemperornapoleon
Berniewood Hogan
IT'S BERNIE SANDERS WITH A STEEL CHAIR!
NATURAL SELECTION ISN'T RANDOM, BROTHER!
IF YOU BELIEVE GOD EXISTS WITHOUT HAVING BEEN CREATED, THIS MEANS YOU BELIEVE IT'S POSSIBLE TO EXIST WITHOUT BEING CREATED, DUDE!
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS A TERM INVENTED BY A TEAM OF LAWYERS WHO WANTED TO USE IT AS A WEDGE TO SNEAK RELIGION INTO THE PUBLIC SCHOOL CURRICULUM, MEAN GENE!
ONE, TWO, THREE, THIS MATCH IS OVER, BROTHER!
IF YOU BELIEVE GOD EXISTS WITHOUT HAVING BEEN CREATED, THIS MEANS YOU BELIEVE IT'S POSSIBLE TO EXIST WITHOUT BEING CREATED, DUDE!
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS A TERM INVENTED BY A TEAM OF LAWYERS WHO WANTED TO USE IT AS A WEDGE TO SNEAK RELIGION INTO THE PUBLIC SCHOOL CURRICULUM, MEAN GENE!
ONE, TWO, THREE, THIS MATCH IS OVER, BROTHER!
Agreed 100% brother, but this was already discussed and answered in previous posts:
Natural selection and adaptation yes, evolution and ID are incompatible because evolution states that you are not a singular occurrence, you came from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee () ID is saying that you and all species are singular occurrences as the result of intelligent design, nothing less, nothing more. Again, the irony is that proponents of the evolutionary theory are purporting something as fact that has less than 1% statistical probability
ID makes no pretenses to know if the Designer was Designed by a a Greater Designer, again, please refer to post #32, it's an irrelevant point to the question of if WE exist via the designs of another Being. Whether the Being is an eternal God or a magical elephant is irrelevant, the question is how did WE get here. Moreover brother, you should read post #5, the whole point of this thread is that we review the main tenets of ID and the typical arguments against it, you're doing this thread a disservice by assuming your argument wasn't already mentioned and discussed, meaning at least go through the first 4 pages for a primer to the discussion before posting, it will make the thread better IMHO. But daps and pos rep for your opinion man, this is the kind of feedback that's going to enlighten everybody on the topic, THAT IS HIGHER LEARNING BROTHER!
did you just strike thru everything he wrote?
that should have been your entire response
ID makes no pretenses to know if the Designer was Designed by a a Greater Designer, again, please refer to post #32, it's an irrelevant point to the question of if WE exist via the designs of another Being. Whether the Being is an eternal God or a magical elephant is irrelevant, the question is how did WE get here. Moreover brother, you should read post #5, the whole point of this thread is that we review the main tenets of ID and the typical arguments against it, you're doing this thread a disservice by assuming your argument wasn't already mentioned and discussed, meaning at least go through the first 4 pages for a primer to the discussion before posting, it will make the thread better IMHO. But daps and pos rep for your opinion man, this is the kind of feedback that's going to enlighten everybody on the topic, THAT IS HIGHER LEARNING BROTHER!
Again you're just moving the goalposts now.
Berniewood Hogan
IT'S BERNIE SANDERS WITH A STEEL CHAIR!
THAT'S NOT THE TRUTH, BROTHER! "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" WAS DESIGNED (NOT TOO INTELLIGENTLY) BY CREATIONISTS WHO DESIRE TO FORCE THEIR BELIEFS ONTO AS MANY AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS AS THEY CAN, IN A VERY DISHONEST WAY, AS HAS BEEN SHOWN TO THE PUBLIC, AND I'M TIRED OF THE SOPHISTRY INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE, BROTHER, DUDE, MEAN GENE, JACK, TOUGH GUY, CHAMP!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
I didnt say it has more or less leverage. I said I have more expertise in philosophy than science. My mind is literally blown that you think that YOUR stance is scientifically verifiable. I have said mine probably isnt. All you can do is poke holes in every one elses theories but you havent and cant prove your own with anything. And you do realize the historical significance of philosophy on science and particularly in the realm of theories on the creation/formation of the Universe, spirituality and religion right? You really need to read or re-read Descarte's Meditations etc. You also need to have better reading comprehension because I have never argued in here by saying my way is right. All Im saying is what I think. Thoughts alone do not equal knowledge...K on this is intellectually arrogant...and you are claiming knowledge. Its almost like me saying..I like Grapefruit Juice and think its good for you...and you saying NO IT HAS TOO MUCH CITRIC ACID AND CAN LEAD TO GALL STONES. Ok? So what? I still like Grapefruit Juice and think its good for you in moderation (and that example makes it easier for you than it should be, bordering on not being equivalent to this argument). Its called an opinion. Its more like me saying Stacy Dash is beautiful and you then trying to define beauty via science and then saying Im wrong and youre right. gtfoh
Let me know when "actual science" proves through itself, that your way of thinking on this is correct without doubt via it being a valid, falsifiable experiment.
Last edited: