Rational Creationism

[lightgigantic]

swarm

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
So IOW the capacities of design are very much determined by the communities that they appear in.
”
What was god's community?

well being established as omniscient, omniotent makes for a kind of broad one

“
the hierarchy of design sophistication is top down
”
It can be, it can also be bottom up and middle out.

feel free to indicate design sophistication (in terms of variety, etc) that works on a bottom up or middle out model

“
verified an replicated by who exactly?
”
Any one who cares to.

so "caring to do so" is the sufficient qualification for verifying and replicating any claim of evidence?

sure you don't want to rephrase that in a more accurate context?

“
Ironically
”
Ironically you still don't know any entities with "greater potency than humans."

must be due to your all knowing potency, eh?

“
Beats me why you find this point controversial. All design requires some degree of potency
”
Sure if you are designing a screw. But there is no know form of "potency" which could effect an entire universe so why should I think that's required?

You are simply expressing your opinion.

There are many physicists who are/were convinced of the necessity for some potency to be capable of exerting an influence on the entire universe - eg einstein, TOE, etc

It makes far more sense for it to be effortless.

others may disagree

but regardless, there is certainly no empirical basis for claim or even consensus on your opinion in the field of physics

“
meanwhile you have the audacity to declare (in a world where we cannot even design a computer or car without an after sales assistance network) that creating a universe stands to be as easy as falling off a log ....
”
Actually I say that it is absurd to think a universe is designed or created.

that's fine, but when you attempt to add credibility to your opinion by borrowing from the authority of empiricism or pretending that there is a scientific consensus establishing your opinion, problems ensue.

“
even if I was making things up, its not clear why you would personally hold that against me
”
Because you are making crap up and pretending its real in a way I find offensive.

I think you miss the point

I was suggesting that you seem to be overlooking vast tracts of fiction that are propping up your own beliefs

“
So during the interim of your lack of evidence you can use the word "god"
”
Its a meaningless term which you already just make crap up about, why can't I?

Well if you want to discuss or even offer a critique of "god", it might actually work to your advantage to refrain yourself. Even prominent atheistic philosophers (eg Flew) don't do that, simply because it just makes for whiny reading

 

[swarm]

well being established as omniscient, omniotent makes for a kind of broad one

Since you don't know god or god's actual community at the time or anything about "omniscient, omniotent" or that god is actually "omniscient, omniotent," how can you draw that conclusion?

feel free to indicate design sophistication (in terms of variety, etc) that works on a bottom up or middle out model

Termites have no central authority yet they build immeansely sopphisticated structures.

so "caring to do so" is the sufficient qualification for verifying and replicating any claim of evidence?

Caring to do so is the only sufficient qualification. There may or may not be other necessary qualifications as long as all qualifications are publically accessible.

must be due to your all knowing potency, eh?

Name them with contact info so your claims can be verified, or admit you are full of shit.

You are simply expressing your opinion.

So? You pull your opinions out of your ass, why can't I actually apply a modicum of reason to the topic?

We know there is no known way for any physical force to effect a collapsed universe from the outside. Any attempted "potency" would simply be absorbed into the blackhole. So why pretend "potency" is needed? It seems obvious that it is not by potency that such an effect could be achieved.

There are many physicists who are/were convinced of the necessity for some potency to be capable of exerting an influence on the entire universe - eg einstein, TOE, etc

You are either mistaken or misrepresenting their positions.

but regardless, there is certainly no empirical basis for claim or even consensus on your opinion in the field of physics

That's because physicists know "intelligent design" and "creation" are bull dada.

that's fine, but when you attempt to add credibility

I'm sorry. Its sometimes hard to convey things like mocking the absurdity of your rediculous position. "Intelligent design" and "creation" is bull dada. Clear?

I think you miss the point

Nope, it is definately because you are making crap up and pretending its real in a way I find offensive.

Well if you want to discuss or even offer a critique of "god"

Which god is that?

 

[lightgigantic]

swarm

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
well being established as omniscient, omniotent makes for a kind of broad one
”
Since you don't know god

Still waiting for you to prove how you know what I know, oh omniscient one

or god's actual community at the time or anything about "omniscient, omniotent" or that god is actually "omniscient, omniotent," how can you draw that conclusion?

geez

I guess you missed the sarcasm ....

Just forget your little trip about knowing what I know for a moment, and consider exactly how many entities would you expect to find in a community hat can lay claim to the potency of god (omnipotent, omniscient, etc etc)?

By logical necessity, if you are going to begin discussing (or critiquing) the topic of god, it is required that god be singular.

This is usually the position that established atheists in the field of philosophy begin at (eg Flew) rather piquing in with claims of what others know (as if repetition somehow bolsters confidence claims).

“
feel free to indicate design sophistication (in terms of variety, etc) that works on a bottom up or middle out model
”
Termites have no central authority yet they build immeansely sopphisticated structures.

I think you missed the point of top down design hierarchy

You established that humans were "better" designers not so much because they could out do termites in all fields, but rather because they could apply themselves to a greater number of fields.

I annotated this comment by also indicating that this also establishes a top down hierarchy. We, as humans, have the ability to ruminate on the design capacities of termites, whereas termites don't have the same opportunity (unless you want to argue that termites enjoy a conscious awareness of the abilities and potencies of humans .... which I assume you don't).

So the nature of the community that one belongs to will not only determine what one is capable of designing, but also what one can determine of the designing capacity of other communities.

This determination is top down.

“
so "caring to do so" is the sufficient qualification for verifying and replicating any claim of evidence?
”
Caring to do so is the only sufficient qualification. There may or may not be other necessary qualifications as long as all qualifications are publically accessible.

using the term "sufficient"( in a philosophical discourse to determine causes) means that it is the one thing which will determine the many.

If there is a requirement for accessibility, "caring to do so" is not sufficient ..... and even then, determining what is "publicly" accessible is also a grey area, since if you examine what you can obtain by "free" education, it tends to provide a limited range of subjects.

“
must be due to your all knowing potency, eh?
”
Name them with contact info so your claims can be verified, or admit you are full of shit.

I'm not sure why you think the universe is so liberally democratic that you can just rock up and verify the contact info of anyone.

You can't even get past the first of the president's 100 secretaries unless you display some sort of qualification
:shrug:

“
You are simply expressing your opinion.
”
So? You pull your opinions out of your ass, why can't I actually apply a modicum of reason to the topic?

the problem is that you are not introducing a modicum of logic

you are simply expressing your opinion on what you think is "knowable" in the universe, as if the paradigm you operate out of is the greatest determining one

(.... if you really believe that there exists no omniscient personalities why do you lodge arguments that logically require you to be omniscient?)

We know there is no known way for any physical force to effect a collapsed universe from the outside.

Why do you speak of yourself in the 3rd person?

attempted "potency" would simply be absorbed into the blackhole. So why pretend "potency" is needed? It seems obvious that it is not by potency that such an effect could be achieved.

so in other words you are not prepared to entertain views that run contrary to highly controversial speculations of advanced physics?

“
There are many physicists who are/were convinced of the necessity for some potency to be capable of exerting an influence on the entire universe - eg einstein, TOE, etc
”
You are either mistaken or misrepresenting their positions.

google "unified field theory"

“
but regardless, there is certainly no empirical basis for claim or even consensus on your opinion in the field of physics
”
That's because physicists know "intelligent design" and "creation" are bull dada.

I'm not sure how clamoring to something that there is no consensus for establishes a knowable claim

“
that's fine, but when you attempt to add credibility
”
I'm sorry. Its sometimes hard to convey things like mocking the absurdity of your rediculous position. "Intelligent design" and "creation" is bull dada. Clear?

hehe

your opinion is clear

Its just when you try to form a coherent argument to justify it that you run into problems
“

I think you miss the point
”
Nope, it is definately because you are making crap up and pretending its real in a way I find offensive.

"I know what I like" and "I like what I know" certainly make great bedfellows, don't they?

“
Well if you want to discuss or even offer a critique of "god"
”
Which god is that?

golly

if you have such an elaborate refutation of the intelligent design debate at hand, I thought you would at least have that one in the bag

 

[swarm]

Still waiting for you to prove how you know what I know, oh omniscient one

Well I didn't want to go into it, but since you insist.

While there are occasionally people who might make one wonder, you obviously don't know god. In fact you are a walking testament against the possibility.

Of all the theists who hang about here, I'd definately rank you as an insult to the very notion of god. You might as well claim I can't possibly know that you breath air.

consider exactly how many entities would you expect to find in a community hat can lay claim to the potency of god (omnipotent, omniscient, etc etc)?

I would expect the number of gods to be unbounded, but probably not infinate.

By logical necessity, if you are going to begin discussing (or critiquing) the topic of god, it is required that god be singular.

You couldn't be more wrong.

I think you missed the point of top down design hierarchy

And I think lust for power has driven you mad.

You established that humans were "better" designers

So? I wanted an example of a staggeringly efficient and complex design which had absolutely no top down to it what so ever.

I annotated this comment by also indicating that this also establishes a top down hierarchy.

Don't make me laugh. There will be termites long after humans go the way of the dodo.

So the nature of the community that one belongs to will not only determine what one is capable of designing, but also what one can determine of the designing capacity of other communities.

This determination is top down.

Not it the least. There is community but there is no "top" in a termite mound.

using the term "sufficient"( in a philosophical discourse to determine causes) means that it is the one thing which will determine the many.

No it means that it is sufficient. I did not say that it was necessary and sufficient, or that it was necessary. Read up on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_sufficient_conditions

I'm not sure why you think the universe is so liberally democratic that you can just rock up and verify the contact info of anyone.

How cute. Your angelic hosts are playing hide and seek.

Produce your designer. You can start with an angelic gofer if he's too "busy" not existing.

 

[lightgigantic]

swarm

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Still waiting for you to prove how you know what I know, oh omniscient one
”
Well I didn't want to go into it, but since you insist.

While there are occasionally people who might make one wonder, you obviously don't know god. In fact you are a walking testament against the possibility.

Of all the theists who hang about here, I'd definately rank you as an insult to the very notion of god. You might as well claim I can't possibly know that you breath air.

So in short you know what I know because you have the opinion I suck.

How eloquent.

“
consider exactly how many entities would you expect to find in a community hat can lay claim to the potency of god (omnipotent, omniscient, etc etc)?
”
I would expect the number of gods to be unbounded, but probably not infinate.

and why would you expect that?

“
I think you missed the point of top down design hierarchy
”
And I think lust for power has driven you mad.

“
You established that humans were "better" designers
”
So?

to begin with, you have introduced an element of hierarchy

I wanted an example of a staggeringly efficient and complex design which had absolutely no top down to it what so ever.

well you don't get that by indicating that humans are "better" designers

“

I annotated this comment by also indicating that this also establishes a top down hierarchy.
”
Don't make me laugh. There will be termites long after humans go the way of the dodo.

duh

and when you used the word "better" were you talking about the human community being "better" equipped at surviving than the termites ... or were you talking about them being "better" because they had a greater facility for comprehending a variety of designs?

“
So the nature of the community that one belongs to will not only determine what one is capable of designing, but also what one can determine of the designing capacity of other communities.

This determination is top down.
”
Not it the least. There is community but there is no "top" in a termite mound.

so you think that it is tenable that termites are just as capable of investigating the activities and designs of the human community?

.... sheeesh

“
using the term "sufficient"( in a philosophical discourse to determine causes) means that it is the one thing which will determine the many.
”
No it means that it is sufficient. I did not say that it was necessary and sufficient, or that it was necessary. Read up on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessa...ent_conditions

ok

so I guess that there are other more important factors to determining qualification that you aren't factoring in yet

“
I'm not sure why you think the universe is so liberally democratic that you can just rock up and verify the contact info of anyone.
”
How cute. Your angelic hosts are playing hide and seek.

Produce your designer. You can start with an angelic gofer if he's too "busy" not existing.

dude

according to your logic not even president obama is real

 

[swarm]

So in short you know what I know because you have the opinion I suck.

Oh no, your suckage transcends mere opinion.

But there has been some good here. The termites really bring home the fact that there can be actual design without any designer. This makes your case that some god did it doubly improbable. It would appear that design is just an emergent property of very complex systems.

So its back down to absolutely no need for any gods and no gods that you can actually present.

 

[lightgigantic]

Oh no, your suckage transcends mere opinion.

and lemme guess

that's your opinion

But there has been some good here. The termites really bring home the fact that there can be actual design without any designer.

This makes your case that some god did it doubly improbable. It would appear that design is just an emergent property of very complex systems.

So its back down to absolutely no need for any gods and no gods that you can actually present.

x 2