The Hard Problems Of Consciousnes - One of the best cases for Intelligent Design

[Sarkus]

Yeah you are right. I do not need to give any additional evidence besides the one that is staring at me in the face. We have through scientific methodology, deconstructed reality and amassed a huge body of knowledge. All we need is to put it together in a logical way. That is what I am endeavoring to do.

And you are failing, in my view.

Well I have not exactly said three parts, but I just put it as if there are three parts to provoke you interest. The truth is that there is no defining line or boundaries. There is differentiation, but no separation. So, they appear three, but in reality they are One.

They appear as three if you model it as three. One could model it as four, as two (left and right hemispheres - as our good friend Wellwisher seems to do every post he makes ) etc.

You can’t fail to agree however that its intriguing. What a coincidence?

Intriguing? That we often model things as consisting of 3 parts? Not really. You simply select as your sample those models that have 3 parts and ignore all the others, and you present the pervasiveness of 3-parts as being significant.
You ignore those models that have 2 parts - such as the entire nature of duality within human philosophy.
You choose to select a model of "universe, galactic system, solar system" yet ignore the system of galactic clusters.
You choose a model of "star, planet, moons" yet this is in actuality a 2-part model of Main and Satellite, merely repeated. It also ignores the possibility sub-moons (satellites of moons) that are theoretically possible.
Etc.

I think you are doing unjust to you intellectual curiosity.

Not at all. When it is logically a case of "I do not know" I just choose not to make up conclusions to satisfy my desires without acknowledging and accepting them for the unsupported opinions that they are, and to acknowledge the reason I come to that conclusion. But I would not believe that conclusion as objectively true, but maybe as practically true (i.e. it is an accepted truth that I live my life by, in full knowledge it may be overturned one day and shown to be false).

 

[BIGFOOT]

If you dress them as fact you do need to support them as facts.
Of course, so while you admit to being subjective you make claims of the objective, claims which have no objective support. Further you leap across the subjective/objective boundary with nothing but "belief" in your subjective opinions yet dress it up as objective support.
Admit to yourself the boundaries of the applicability of your opinions, and maybe you'll admit that the objective reality is a case of "we don't know".
Everything we do is subjective, so we use tools that try to limit the level of subjectivity.
No it doesn't, otherwise you'd never read a book, watch a film, where you "don't know" the ending until it is discovered.
For those things we might determine are "unknowable" - we can still work to get as close and as rational as possible.
It is merely laziness and personal dissatisfaction with "I don't know", in my view, that results in many people's belief - their desire for an answer, and their desire for an answer they find acceptable rather than one that follows only as far as the evidence goes.

If you dress them as fact you do need to support them as facts.

Just like in any scientific enquiry, we always make assumptions, and then test them. You are creating a model of something hidden and the only way you can know is from result of experiments and inferences that you make from experiments. People used to think the sun obits the earth……..and for a very long time. until the Greek Galileo Galilei discovered the earth rotates the sun . We have arrived this far from experiments, and postulations, and testing these postulations.

We have scientific fact of knowledge that we have accumulated for a long time. And credit goes to those giants who bestowed us with it. My proposition is that we are not to accumulate knowledge for accumulation’s sake. We got to go an extra mile. My proposition is that knowledge is accumulated for the purpose of Reconciliation, not division. So, all am doing is sitting on the shoulders of these giants like “The Brave Little Tailor” trying to figure how we can reconcile everything. And I mean everything. So, my hypothesis, if not based on imaginary illusions, but on the scientific data we have gathered. So when you ask me for “fact” you appear to deny that the scientific facts I am using are factual.



Of course, so while you admit to being subjective you make claims of the objective, claims which have no objective support. Further you leap across the subjective/objective boundary with nothing but "belief" in your subjective opinions yet dress it up as objective support. Admit to yourself the boundaries of the applicability of your opinions, and maybe you'll admit that the objective reality is a case of "we don't know".

Ok. So, “we do not know” But who says that we should not try to understand? Did the pioneers of science leave not lesson to us? So, are we only going to be content with what other men have achieved? I say no! But as I try to reconcile, I am ready for the ridicule with which all pioneers suffer. They have always waned. “Every truth passes through three stages before it’s recognized. In the first, it’s ridiculed. In the second, it’s opposed. And in the third, its regarded as self-evident” Arthur Schopenhauer,

Go on throw your barbs!!



Everything we do is subjective, so we use tools that try to limit the level of subjectivity.

I have no problem with that.


No it doesn't, otherwise you'd never read a book, watch a film, where you "don't know" the ending until it is discovered. For those things we might determine are "unknowable" - we can still work to get as close and as rational as possible. It is merely laziness and personal dissatisfaction with "I don't know", in my view, that results in many people's belief - their desire for an answer, and their desire for an answer they find acceptable rather than one that follows only as far as the evidence goes.


I have through the years I have been here on earth come to see life as a movie. The difference is that you play all parts. You are the writer of the script, you are the actor, director, critic, audience, and archives. So, since “I am the Story of my life” do not begrudge me if I try to improve my story by trying to figure out how it might end.

 

[BIGFOOT]

And you are failing, in my view.
They appear as three if you model it as three. One could model it as four, as two (left and right hemispheres - as our good friend Wellwisher seems to do every post he makes ) etc.
Intriguing? That we often model things as consisting of 3 parts? Not really. You simply select as your sample those models that have 3 parts and ignore all the others, and you present the pervasiveness of 3-parts as being significant.
You ignore those models that have 2 parts - such as the entire nature of duality within human philosophy.
You choose to select a model of "universe, galactic system, solar system" yet ignore the system of galactic clusters.
You choose a model of "star, planet, moons" yet this is in actuality a 2-part model of Main and Satellite, merely repeated. It also ignores the possibility sub-moons (satellites of moons) that are theoretically possible.
Etc.
Not at all. When it is logically a case of "I do not know" I just choose not to make up conclusions to satisfy my desires without acknowledging and accepting them for the unsupported opinions that they are, and to acknowledge the reason I come to that conclusion. But I would not believe that conclusion as objectively true, but maybe as practically true (i.e. it is an accepted truth that I live my life by, in full knowledge it may be overturned one day and shown to be false).

And you are failing, in my view.

Failing is expected in “Unsheltered Water” By the time Edison came up with the Bulb, I hear he had done a 1000 tests with a failure in each. Am just starting.

They appear as three if you model it as three. One could model it as four, as two (left and right hemispheres - as our good friend Wellwisher seems to do every post he makes.

Am trying to use Ockham’s ’s Razor,

Intriguing? That we often model things as consisting of 3 parts? Not really. …….

Ockham’s Razor Cut the unnecessary and posit the probable.

Not at all. When it is logically a case of "I do not know" I just choose not to make up conclusions to satisfy my desires without acknowledging and accepting them for the unsupported opinions that they are, and to acknowledge the reason I come to that conclusion…………

Probably its because I am just giving a sampling of what I have. The picture is so big, I cannot give it “Whole” I can only give potions, and its for you tot connect the logic. Unfortunately you appear to “want not to know” anyway.

 

[Sarkus]

Just like in any scientific enquiry, we always make assumptions, and then test them. You are creating a model of something hidden and the only way you can know is from result of experiments and inferences that you make from experiments. People used to think the sun obits the earth……..and for a very long time. until the Greek Galileo Galilei discovered the earth rotates the sun . We have arrived this far from experiments, and postulations, and testing these postulations.

And therein lies the rub - in that ID is not scientific. It is unfalsifiable. Yet you claim scientific enquiry.
Until you resolve this contradiction you will get no audience other than those who already believe in what you peddle.
Either show how ID is scientific or please stop peddling it as such.

We have scientific fact of knowledge that we have accumulated for a long time. And credit goes to those giants who bestowed us with it. My proposition is that we are not to accumulate knowledge for accumulation’s sake. We got to go an extra mile. My proposition is that knowledge is accumulated for the purpose of Reconciliation, not division. So, all am doing is sitting on the shoulders of these giants like “The Brave Little Tailor” trying to figure how we can reconcile everything. And I mean everything. So, my hypothesis, if not based on imaginary illusions, but on the scientific data we have gathered. So when you ask me for “fact” you appear to deny that the scientific facts I am using are factual.

And you are doing all this without following the scientific method - merely starting with the facts and then interpreting it to fill an agenda. As soon as you do this you deviate from science. Yes, you at least seem to want to start from the scientific discoveries and knowledge, and that is to be applauded, but you take it too far while still trying to wrap yourself in the blanket of science and the protection you think that will give you.
Spot the boundary and admit that anything beyond it is not science, is not unambiguously supported by science, and that it is wholly a matter of belief, and interpreting to fit the belief. Because that is what you're doing.

Ok. So, “we do not know” But who says that we should not try to understand? Did the pioneers of science leave not lesson to us? So, are we only going to be content with what other men have achieved? I say no! But as I try to reconcile, I am ready for the ridicule with which all pioneers suffer. They have always waned. “Every truth passes through three stages before it’s recognized. In the first, it’s ridiculed. In the second, it’s opposed. And in the third, its regarded as self-evident” Arthur Schopenhauer,

Go on throw your barbs!!

First, noone says we should not try to understand, but we should not claim as fact that which is not supported as such, and that which is purely a desire for a conclusion where none can scientifically yet be reached.
Yes, we can and should try to understand, but for that - if you truly admire the science upon which you want to build your case - you should follow the scientific method and not deviate from it into realms of wishful thinking and interpreting to satisfy a specific agenda.
Second, your argument is egotistical and fallacious. If you accept that truth goes through a stage of ridicule, that does not mean that everything ridiculed will lead to the truth. Further, the truth was only accepted with the weight of scientific evidence behind it, something which ID will never have due to being unscientific in nature.

I have through the years I have been here on earth come to see life as a movie. The difference is that you play all parts. You are the writer of the script, you are the actor, director, critic, audience, and archives. So, since “I am the Story of my life” do not begrudge me if I try to improve my story by trying to figure out how it might end.

I don't begrudge you from trying. But please do not portray the grounds of your attempts as something that they are not. Be honest with yourself at least, in this regard.

 

[Sarkus]

Failing is expected in “Unsheltered Water” By the time Edison came up with the Bulb, I hear he had done a 1000 tests with a failure in each. Am just starting.

His failures were scientific in nature. Yours are not. Yours start with seeing something as being scientific, or at least wanting it to be seen as such, when it is not.

Am trying to use Ockham’s ’s Razor,
...
Ockham’s Razor Cut the unnecessary and posit the probable.

But it goes further than that in that if you start with unwarranted assumptions you will see other assumptions as necessary. For example, if you start with the notion that Man is somehow important, or indeed the pinnacle and the ultimate purpose, then that begs the question of an Intelligent Designer, and as such the razor would see the designer as necessary. But you need to apply it to those initial underlying assumptions as well.
If the end result (i.e. our situation now) can be reached without such assumptions as our being important or the purpose, then the razor would suggest that those assumptions are not necessary.
So while you may be applying it, you perhaps do so when it is already too late.

Probably its because I am just giving a sampling of what I have. The picture is so big, I cannot give it “Whole” I can only give potions, and its for you tot connect the logic. Unfortunately you appear to “want not to know” anyway.

I do not "want not to know" - I would very much like to know the truth, just not waste time with unfalsifiable notions for which, being unfalsifiable, we can never know if they are true or not. It is a case of focusing on that which can be known and not on that which can't.
And please don't take criticism of your endeavours and position as "well, you clearly don't want to know the truth"... that is nothing but sour grapes on your part.

 

[BIGFOOT]

And therein lies the rub - in that ID is not scientific. It is unfalsifiable. Yet you claim scientific enquiry.
Until you resolve this contradiction you will get no audience other than those who already believe in what you peddle.
Either show how ID is scientific or please stop peddling it as such.
And you are doing all this without following the scientific method - merely starting with the facts and then interpreting it to fill an agenda. As soon as you do this you deviate from science. Yes, you at least seem to want to start from the scientific discoveries and knowledge, and that is to be applauded, but you take it too far while still trying to wrap yourself in the blanket of science and the protection you think that will give you.
Spot the boundary and admit that anything beyond it is not science, is not unambiguously supported by science, and that it is wholly a matter of belief, and interpreting to fit the belief. Because that is what you're doing.
First, noone says we should not try to understand, but we should not claim as fact that which is not supported as such, and that which is purely a desire for a conclusion where none can scientifically yet be reached.
Yes, we can and should try to understand, but for that - if you truly admire the science upon which you want to build your case - you should follow the scientific method and not deviate from it into realms of wishful thinking and interpreting to satisfy a specific agenda.
Second, your argument is egotistical and fallacious. If you accept that truth goes through a stage of ridicule, that does not mean that everything ridiculed will lead to the truth. Further, the truth was only accepted with the weight of scientific evidence behind it, something which ID will never have due to being unscientific in nature.
I don't begrudge you from trying. But please do not portray the grounds of your attempts as something that they are not. Be honest with yourself at least, in this regard.

And therein lies the rub - in that ID is not scientific. It is unfalsifiable. Yet you claim scientific enquiry.
Until you resolve this contradiction you will get no audience other than those who already believe in what you peddle. Either show how ID is scientific or please stop peddling it as such.



Scientists are never known to readily accept each others opinions. I doubt whether Einstein died having agreed with Warner Heisenberg. So, not being a scientists as such, the calumny may be over exaggerated. Theories are just theories. But many do not end up theories but facts. Its unfortunate that a theory that in a revolutionary way overturns our view of reality, is always opposed by many of those who are comfortable with things as they are.

For now, the I.D theory has not been accepted by many scientists. But almost as many, have accepted it. But since those who manipulate people fear exposure when Truth is revealed, finance goes to those who oppose revolutionary ideas.

That being said, am not claiming the monopoly of Truth. Just stating a point. Now, although as I said, I.D has not been accepted, there is no reason why one should not consider it. After all, most scientific theories, start as “pseudo-science”


And you are doing all this without following the scientific method - merely starting with the facts and then interpreting it to fill an agenda. As soon as you do this you deviate from science. Yes, you at least seem to want to start from the scientific discoveries and knowledge, and that is to be applauded, but you take it too far while still trying to wrap yourself in the blanket of science and the protection you think that will give you. Spot the boundary and admit that anything beyond it is not science, is not unambiguously supported by science, and that it is wholly a matter of belief, and interpreting to fit the belief. Because that is what you're doing.

Yeah. I have an agenda. Reconciliation of knowledge and spirituality. So, its most likely I will not have friendly critic by scientists, because its “Fallacious” to claim that a subject that started in order to disclaim God, ends up proofing Him. I agree. How dare make the scientist look a fool! Apologies!

First, no one says we should not try to understand, but we should not claim as fact that which is not supported as such, and that which is purely a desire for a conclusion where none can scientifically yet be reached. Yes, we can and should try to understand, but for that - if you truly admire the science upon which you want to build your case - you should follow the scientific method and not deviate from it into realms of wishful thinking and interpreting to satisfy a specific agenda. Second, your argument is egotistical and fallacious. If you accept that truth goes through a stage of ridicule, that does not mean that everything ridiculed will lead to the truth. Further, the truth was only accepted with the weight of scientific evidence behind it, something which ID will never have due to being unscientific in nature.



As I said, am not claiming the monopoly of Truth. Am just a curious just taking pieces of scientific knowledge and putting it together, and see if reality will make more sense. Of course I am handicapped by the fact that I came to look at science latter in life, and not necessarily from a “Scholarly” need, but out of curiosity. I do not expect to through away the I.D theory, not only because of my “Religious bias” but because I see it as fallacious (sorry, I will borrow your word) to have a people develop scientific knowledge from a reality that allegedly came out of nothing.

Can you not see the most outrageous claim is that there is no intelligence behind an intelligent species? How is it possible for you to claim that your intelligence came out of nothing?

 

[BIGFOOT]

And therein lies the rub - in that ID is not scientific. It is unfalsifiable. Yet you claim scientific enquiry.
Until you resolve this contradiction you will get no audience other than those who already believe in what you peddle. Either show how ID is scientific or please stop peddling it as such.



Scientists are never known to readily accept each others opinions. I doubt whether Einstein died having agreed with Warner Heisenberg. So, not being a scientists as such, the calumny may be over exaggerated. Theories are just theories. But many do not end up theories but facts. Its unfortunate that a theory that in a revolutionary way overturns our view of reality, is always opposed by many of those who are comfortable with things as they are.

For now, the I.D theory has not been accepted by many scientists. But almost as many, have accepted it. But since those who manipulate people fear exposure when Truth is revealed, finance goes to those who oppose revolutionary ideas.

That being said, am not claiming the monopoly of Truth. Just stating a point. Now, although as I said, I.D has not been accepted, there is no reason why one should not consider it. After all, most scientific theories, start as “pseudo-science”


And you are doing all this without following the scientific method - merely starting with the facts and then interpreting it to fill an agenda. As soon as you do this you deviate from science. Yes, you at least seem to want to start from the scientific discoveries and knowledge, and that is to be applauded, but you take it too far while still trying to wrap yourself in the blanket of science and the protection you think that will give you. Spot the boundary and admit that anything beyond it is not science, is not unambiguously supported by science, and that it is wholly a matter of belief, and interpreting to fit the belief. Because that is what you're doing.

Yeah. I have an agenda. Reconciliation of knowledge and spirituality. So, its most likely I will not have friendly critic by scientists, because its “Fallacious” to claim that a subject that started in order to disclaim God, ends up proofing Him. I agree. How dare make the scientist look a fool! Apologies!

First, no one says we should not try to understand, but we should not claim as fact that which is not supported as such, and that which is purely a desire for a conclusion where none can scientifically yet be reached. Yes, we can and should try to understand, but for that - if you truly admire the science upon which you want to build your case - you should follow the scientific method and not deviate from it into realms of wishful thinking and interpreting to satisfy a specific agenda. Second, your argument is egotistical and fallacious. If you accept that truth goes through a stage of ridicule, that does not mean that everything ridiculed will lead to the truth. Further, the truth was only accepted with the weight of scientific evidence behind it, something which ID will never have due to being unscientific in nature.



As I said, am not claiming the monopoly of Truth. Am just a curious just taking pieces of scientific knowledge and putting it together, and see if reality will make more sense. Of course I am handicapped by the fact that I came to look at science latter in life, and not necessarily from a “Scholarly” need, but out of curiosity. I do not expect to through away the I.D theory, not only because of my “Religious bias” but because I see it as fallacious (sorry, I will borrow your word) to have a people develop scientific knowledge from a reality that allegedly came out of nothing.

Can you not see the most outrageous claim is that there is no intelligence behind an intelligent species? How is it possible for you to claim that your intelligence came out of nothing?

His failures were scientific in nature. Yours are not. Yours start with seeing something as being scientific, or at least wanting it to be seen as such, when it is not.

I am using scientific knowledge to hypothesize a marriage with Spirituality. So, you, most likely being irreligious, bordering on atheism, I might appear pugnaciously unscientific. I think there might be an attack on the foundation upon which we have laid our understanding of reality. So, in a way you are right when you say my claim of importance of man, are unwarranted. It’s a position you may be forced to defend, because it may be part of that foundation am talking about.

But it goes further than that in that if you start with unwarranted assumptions you will see other assumptions as necessary. For example, if you start with the notion that Man is somehow important, or indeed the pinnacle and the ultimate purpose, then that begs the question of an Intelligent Designer, and as such the razor would see the designer as necessary. But you need to apply it to those initial underlying assumptions as well. If the end result (i.e. our situation now) can be reached without such assumptions as our being important or the purpose, then the razor would suggest that those assumptions are not necessary. So while you may be applying it, you perhaps do so when it is already too late.

So, I guess I was right. You have arrived at the end result, that man is not important, and therefore, any argument that raises Man up, and ends up revealing God, in him, is unwarranted. I think we can agree there is a conflict of interest. Am interested in Man, you are not.

 

[Sarkus]

For now, the I.D theory has not been accepted by many scientists.

ID theory is simply unscientific.
Scientists may have accepted it, but they do so outside the purview of them being scientists.
You do understand that to be scientific a theory needs to be falsifiable? How is ID falsifiable? How is it even testable?

BThat being said, am not claiming the monopoly of Truth. Just stating a point. Now, although as I said, I.D has not been accepted, there is no reason why one should not consider it. After all, most scientific theories, start as “pseudo-science”

And ID is NOT a scientific theory, so comparing it with would appear to be fallacious.

As I said, am not claiming the monopoly of Truth. Am just a curious just taking pieces of scientific knowledge and putting it together, and see if reality will make more sense. Of course I am handicapped by the fact that I came to look at science latter in life, and not necessarily from a “Scholarly” need, but out of curiosity. I do not expect to through away the I.D theory, not only because of my “Religious bias” but because I see it as fallacious (sorry, I will borrow your word) to have a people develop scientific knowledge from a reality that allegedly came out of nothing.

It didn't necessarily come out of nothing (there may well have been interacting branes that gave rise to the universe, but from the point of view of the internal universe it would appear to have come from nothing, irrespective of what gave rise to it). And how is that idea in any way fallacious? Where is the invalid logic?

Can you not see the most outrageous claim is that there is no intelligence behind an intelligent species? How is it possible for you to claim that your intelligence came out of nothing?

This is nothing but an argument from personal incredulity. One should merely follow the evidence, and when the evidence is insufficient to answer the question we should say "I don't know", not make up some unscientific notion and claim it as truth.

I am using scientific knowledge to hypothesize a marriage with Spirituality.

And you are doing it in an unscientific manner.

So, you, most likely being irreligious, bordering on atheism, I might appear pugnaciously unscientific. I think there might be an attack on the foundation upon which we have laid our understanding of reality. So, in a way you are right when you say my claim of importance of man, are unwarranted. It’s a position you may be forced to defend, because it may be part of that foundation am talking about.

Why would I be forced to defend an unwarranted position that you are taking? I have explained why I consider it unwarranted, and for you it seems to be an argument from incredulity.
Further, I am not bordering on atheism... I am an atheist... I do not have belief that God exists, although I also do not have the belief that God does not exist.

So, I guess I was right. You have arrived at the end result, that man is not important, and therefore, any argument that raises Man up, and ends up revealing God, in him, is unwarranted.

No, this is a fallacious conclusion on your part. I only ask that any argument that raises Man up is based on something other than wishful thinking and fallacious logic. If Man is important then provide the evidence that logically and unambiguously leads to that conclusion. Any argument that starts with that as an assumption and then merely interprets evidence to fit is fallacious.

I think we can agree there is a conflict of interest. Am interested in Man, you are not.

You are interested in extolling Man as the pinnacle, the purpose, irrespective of what the evidence actually leads to. I am interested in what is knowable, whatever that might be.

 

[sculptor]

It seems odd to me that some people opposed to any intelligent design concept would rather believe in random chance.

 

[exchemist]

It seems odd to me that some people opposed to any intelligent design concept would rather believe in random chance.

Why? What do you mean? The evidence is that "random" behaviour at the atomic level (although still following certain principles) give rise to order at the level we observe directly. Why would a scientist not believe the evidence?

 

[sculptor]

Both random and "following certain principles"
Could you just choose one?

"following certain principles" would seem to indicate pattern
pattern then would lead to intent(of the pattern to continue within the parameters of the pattern))
3,16,19,35,54,89, ...
3,16,19,22,38,57, ...

I do not believe that Abraham's god created the world/biom for us.
I do believe that the world/biom created us for the biom.
Nothing "random" about it.
Pattern, principles, design, the difference seems to be in perspective.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

M.R.:
For you to spout such nonsense, I get the distinct impression that you have never actually read the bible.

as/re

which brings me back to:


It seems that those who would dismiss "GOD" (Or the concept "GOD")
Create a fiction a fantasy a construct within their own minds which predisposes them to emotions of negativity and revulsion, then claim that construct to be THE definition of "GOD" and then proceed to dismiss that warped figment of their own peculiar imaginations with grossly misplaced feelings of righteousness.

(advice du jour)
Eschew it.

Funny, it is your statement on whether I have read it that shows clearly you have not.
You are the 1 who attempted to fabricate a god. I did not construct the christian god.
You should look into a mirror while attempting to give advice.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Both random and "following certain principles"
Could you just choose one?

"following certain principles" would seem to indicate pattern
pattern then would lead to intent(of the pattern to continue within the parameters of the pattern))
3,16,19,35,54,89, ...
3,16,19,22,38,57, ...

I do not believe that Abraham's god created the world/biom for us.
I do believe that the world/biom created us for the biom.
Nothing "random" about it.
Pattern, principles, design, the difference seems to be in perspective.

Random or not, the world is not an intelligence. Intelligent design comes from a conscious intelligence. The issue is whether the universe developed on its own or whether it was due to the power, design & manipulations of a conscious intelligence. If it developed on its own, that, of course, is not intelligent design.

 

[sculptor]

Funny, it is your statement on whether I have read it that shows clearly you have not.
You are the 1 who attempted to fabricate a god. I did not construct the christian god.
You should look into a mirror while attempting to give advice.

Actually, though raised christian, and having read the bible(more'n once), I ain't really a follower of the god of Abraham---I ain't Abraham. I ain't jewish. I think a religion which chooses a guy hanging on a cross as their symbol is a tad odd. "by this sign conquer"
I even formed a bible study group while in the army---there is a lot of interesting stuff in that book---until our chaplin was replaced by a redneck southern baptist who feigned faith but had none, nor love of his flock. He threw me out of his chapel screaming "Out of my church you sacrilegious son of a bitch". And we swapped bible study for scrabble.
Ok so I have my own views
most definitely influenced by zen and taoism.

Wasn't advice, and the god of abraham was indeed a vindictive asshole, who chose one peoples (abrahams) over all other people. And I ain't one of abraham's people. Never was, never will be.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Actually, though raised christian, and having read the bible(more'n once), I ain't really a follower of the god of Abraham---I ain't Abraham. I ain't jewish. I think a religion which chooses a guy hanging on a cross as their symbol is a tad odd. "by this sign conquer"
I even formed a bible study group while in the army---there is a lot of interesting stuff in that book---until our chaplin was replaced by a redneck southern baptist who feigned faith but had none, nor love of his flock. He threw me out of his chapel screaming "Out of my church you sacrilegious son of a bitch". And we swapped bible study for scrabble.
Ok so I have my own views
most definitely influenced by zen and taoism.

Wasn't advice, and the god of abraham was indeed a vindictive asshole, who chose one peoples (abrahams) over all other people. And I ain't one of abraham's people. Never was, never will be.

Sorry. When someone says "(advice du jour) Eschew it." to me, I assume they're attempting to give me advice.
Are you 2 people???

 

[sculptor]

only 2?
my shrink might be overcharging me

 

[Aqueous Id]

Random or not, the world is not an intelligence. Intelligent design comes from a conscious intelligence. The issue is whether the universe developed on its own or whether it was due to the power, design & manipulations of a conscious intelligence. If it developed on its own, that, of course, is not intelligent design.

And also, since intelligence (the ability to learn) is an animal brain function, it couldn't have any bearing on the universe, much less on the presumed mind of God, which is postulated nowhere else other than in myth, legend and fable, esp. of superstitious origin.

Which leaves the issue in pretty bad shape.

 

[BIGFOOT]

It seems odd to me that some people opposed to any intelligent design concept would rather believe in random chance.

Yeah. and Its something very strange

 

[BIGFOOT]

Why? What do you mean? The evidence is that "random" behaviour at the atomic level (although still following certain principles) give rise to order at the level we observe directly. Why would a scientist not believe the evidence?

There is no "random" behavior are atomic level. There is uncertainty of knowing how atoms behave, and why they do that, or even whether they are discreet entities.

 

[BIGFOOT]

ID theory is simply unscientific.
Scientists may have accepted it, but they do so outside the purview of them being scientists.
You do understand that to be scientific a theory needs to be falsifiable? How is ID falsifiable? How is it even testable?
And ID is NOT a scientific theory, so comparing it with would appear to be fallacious.
It didn't necessarily come out of nothing (there may well have been interacting branes that gave rise to the universe, but from the point of view of the internal universe it would appear to have come from nothing, irrespective of what gave rise to it). And how is that idea in any way fallacious? Where is the invalid logic?
This is nothing but an argument from personal incredulity. One should merely follow the evidence, and when the evidence is insufficient to answer the question we should say "I don't know", not make up some unscientific notion and claim it as truth.
And you are doing it in an unscientific manner.
Why would I be forced to defend an unwarranted position that you are taking? I have explained why I consider it unwarranted, and for you it seems to be an argument from incredulity.
Further, I am not bordering on atheism... I am an atheist... I do not have belief that God exists, although I also do not have the belief that God does not exist.
No, this is a fallacious conclusion on your part. I only ask that any argument that raises Man up is based on something other than wishful thinking and fallacious logic. If Man is important then provide the evidence that logically and unambiguously leads to that conclusion. Any argument that starts with that as an assumption and then merely interprets evidence to fit is fallacious.
You are interested in extolling Man as the pinnacle, the purpose, irrespective of what the evidence actually leads to. I am interested in what is knowable, whatever that might be.

ID theory is simply unscientific.
Scientists may have accepted it, but they do so outside the purview of them being scientists.
You do understand that to be scientific a theory needs to be falsifiable? How is ID falsifiable? How is it even testable?

”People must constantly search for “Truth” by building upon what others have learned. But no knowledge can be assumed to be complete and final. It could be contradicted by new information received tomorrow”( Evolution of Civilization. Carol Quigley.)

That means that all you believe as fact, can, and may later be proves wrong. Its therefore not advisable to be so rigid.



It didn't necessarily come out of nothing (there may well have been interacting branes that gave rise to the universe, but from the point of view of the internal universe it would appear to have come from nothing, irrespective of what gave rise to it). And how is that idea in any way fallacious? Where is the invalid logic?



it would appear to have come from nothing, irrespective of what gave rise to it

For someone who claims to be so grounded on logic. this statement is a strange one.


And you are doing it in an unscientific manner.

That, is you opinion.

If Man is important then provide the evidence that logically and unambiguously leads to that conclusion. Any argument that starts with that as an assumption and then merely interprets evidence to fit is fallacious.

Okay let me try;

When one observe the earth, and even the universe, there appears to be a peculiar surgical precision involved in the creation process, a precision which appears to have been aiming at man. For example, when one considers mans presence on earth, how he has grown in intelligence and awareness, and the way earth resources have evolved with precision for the mans sole use, man appears like a prodigious child who grows up to suddenly find himself an heir to a vast rich empire, filled with all kind of riches, straight out of fantasy land, left to him by his unknown Father. One gets this impression because this planet earth, seems to have been surgically customized for easy existence of man. If in deed man happened by mare chance, for some unknown reason, nature, or whatever force that precipitated his appearance seem to have anticipated his appearance on earth! Its as if, having prior knowledge that man would appear, this "force" whatever it was, evaluated all mans needs through out his time on earth, and designed the creation process with surgical precision, such that the process would fashion every resource that man would need and make sure that was ready just in time, when man appeared, was ready for it. For man is the only creature amongst all earthly creatures, who make exhaustive use of all the earths resources. And they are so abundant, some even yet to be discovered! Other creature, confine their interest to what they need for their basic survival.

We are therefore forced to ask some logical questions about some peculiar coincidences, which appear in the universe and earth. How can it be, that for example, some unthinking “force” back in time, would know that man would appear, and would need, oil, coal, gold, copper, iron, bauxite steel, and all other minerals that man exploits, and with surgical precision, driven by mare chance, coordinate the creative process, such that all these minerals, and other resources would be ready and available just about when man appeared and was in need for them? How could “nature” anticipate when man would need fuel, and plan and coordinate a global flooding back in the Precambrian period, which buried billion and billions of tones of vegetation, plant animal and other organisms , thousands of meters deep in the ground, all over the world, and coordinate their decay and their fossilization , to become the carbon based oil, gas and coal, just at the right moment when man needed it? How could an unthinking force of nature, surgically position the sun, and its planets including the earth exactly in that location in the Milky Way galaxy, where life could evolve? How could it fortuitously, plan to protect earth with a humongous planet Jupiter, whose gravitational force sucks in most of the space debris that could plummet the earth, rendering life extinct? How could it know the size that is required of the moon, to have just the right amount of gravitational attraction, which would help in earth’s weather pattern?

How could an unthinking force calculate and snugly put the earth just the right distance from the sun, which makes the earths atmosphere ideal to support life? How could it fortuitously decide the speed of the earths rotation on its axis, which helps the uniform worming of the earths surface? How could it, fortuitously, make the earth axis to keep tilting occasionally with respect to its orbit, enabling the different seasons in different places? How could it know that the Suns ultraviolet radiation, would harm any life form on it, and decide to cover its stratosphere with the ozone layer? How could it know that air, and water, would be prerequisite to life, and make them the most abundant? The probability of all these cosmological coincidences, or parameters happening by mare chance, are incalculable. And to claim that all this happened by chance borders on fallacy