|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design or unthinking blasphemy? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
nemesis_juggernaut writes: We don't need to identify what the Desginer is through science. I didn't say anything about "identifying" the Designer. I said that you can not know what the Designer's intentions were. Therefore, you can not know whether the designs acheived the Designer's goals. Therefore, you can not determine whether the Designer was Intelligent or Idiotic. So, even if your argument is about design, it isn't about Intelligent design. Maybe the Designer was trying for a toaster when he came up with you.
However, if you found a toaster in the woods would you need to know who built it in order to understand that someone with a mind must have designed it? That old canard is a bit dishonest. If I found a toaster in the woods (or a watch on the beach), I wouldn't be concerned about whether it was "designed" or not. I'd be wondering who left it there. That's not an argument for design - it's an argument for alien intervention. Maybe there's a planet somewhere where toasters evolved into watches without a designer.
I don't believe that we are here by accident. I believe we are here by design. This is a science forum. Your beliefs are irrelevant.
When did I say that I know nothing of Intelligent Design? What I said was I can't 'know' that God exists.... No, you didn't say that at all. In Message 72, I said:
quote: and in Message 74, you replied:
quote: I take that as an admission that you don't know anything about the Designer's abilities.
It almost sounds like you're demonizing faith? Not on this thread, as far as I can remember. Maybe you're thinking of another thread where I was demonizing faith. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: Magic is seldom used in common everyday speach in reference to the supernatural aspects of God. The universal primary word for that is miracle. Suppose a Muslim turned water into wine. Would you call that "miracle" or "magic"?Suppose a Hindu fed five thousand people with five loaves and two fishes. Miracle or magic? Suppose a Satanist rose from the dead. Miracle or magic? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Archer Opterix writes: Magic refers to something a human being does. Miracle refers to something a deity does. I don't find that a very useful distinction. Many times, a "miracle" is the deity working through a human being. Jesus told His disciples:
quote: He said that He Himself was an instrument of the deity:
quote: In magic, you claim:
quote: But how can you tell whose "will" is being served, God's or man's? Since there doesn't seem to be a practical distinction between miracle and magic, I think the use of "magic" for "acts of God" is legitimate. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
xXGEARXx writes: ... why is it so hard believe life is intelligently designed? Because the "design" is so poor. As per the topic, blaming the "design" on God makes Him look like an idiot. Claiming that He created a "perfect" design that somehow made itself imperfect also makes Him look like an incompetent fool. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
2ice_baked_taters writes: Perfection or imperfection by who's definition? Idiot by who's definition? What definitions do we have but our own? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
2ice_baked_taters writes: What definitions do we have but our own? We have the definitions of others to consider. By "our own", I meant the human race in general.
I do not share your assesment of the topics question. That doesn't matter. You have no special knowledge of the "designer" either.
Because the "design" is so poor. This is simply your assertion. One done without any knowledge of wether or not it is design or if it is design what the intended outcome of the design is. Not at all. My assessment of the "design" is from the customer's viewpoint. Since none of us can know what the designer's intended outcome was, those intentions are utterly irrelevant. Who cares whether Henry Ford was trying to invent a car or a time machine? From our point of view, it's a car, and nothing else matters. We assess its design on our criteria, not his. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
2ice_baked_taters writes: Yes, You have an opinion but what is your point? My point is that we and we alone decide what is a good design and what is not. We have no way of knowing what the "designer's" intentions were, so the only criteria we have for judgement are our own. By our (human) standards, the "design" of many living things is crap. That implies that if living things were "designed", the "designer" is either incompetent or malevolent. Applying such a conclusion to God would be blasphemy, so those who do not wish to blaspheme ought to get off the "design" train. Pointy enough? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
2ice_baked_taters writes: So all humans share this view? I do not. This is your personal opinion. The argument from design suggests that "we" - i.e. humans - can detect design. Do all humans share that view? I do not. It is your personal opinion.
So yes, you have an opinion, what is your point? My point seems to coincide with what others are expressing. What's your point? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
2ice_baked_taters writes: What if we remove the assumtion of God from ID and simply ask if there is evidence of design? Try reading the OP:
quote: We are not removing the assumption of God in this topic. We are discussing specifically whether or not "intelligent design" is a blasphemous concept. Removing the assumption of God removes the possibility of blasphemy and the topic dies. This is not just another venue for pseudo-philosophical blatherings. Please discuss the topic. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
2ice_baked_taters writes: It is only blasphemy if you assume the design is flawed. It's not an assumption. It's a conclusion. Do you know the difference?
One persons flaw is anothers perfection. That's just silly. In whose opinion is bad vision or bad joints "perfection"?
Now design, essentially, is when we replace the actual trial and error process with an abstract version of same. Suggesting God did this means He can err. Explain this more clearly. As I stated quite plainly, that quote is from the OP. It isn't my job to explain the OP to you. I quoted it to show that God is the topic.
This is not just another venue for pseudo-philosophical blatherings. Please discuss the topic. In case you hadn't looked at the title it is characterised by your above statement. The "unthinking" part?I was giving you an oppurtunity to do some thinking and perhaps redeem yourself. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
2ice_baked_taters writes: It's not an assumption. It's a conclusion. Do you know the difference? Yeah, you have an opinion, so do I We've heard that broken record. If all you can say is "That's just your opinion" over and over and over again, you apparently don't know the difference between an assumption and a conclusion.
We learn when dealing with our "imperfections" All lifes tough lessons teach us things. The fact that we learn to cope with our imperfections doesn't in any way stop them from being imperfections. If you are suggesting that our imperfections were "designed in" for our edification, then you are the one who is making unwarranted assumptions about the designer's intentions.
... to hold yourself acountable to your own definitions. You have to learn to read more carefully. I haven't given any definitions. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
2ice_baked_taters writes: I pointed out that the topic was none other. What you have pointed out is that you have no clue what the topic is. Unless your response contains some reference to blasphemy, I will waste no more time on you. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
xXGEARXx writes: Why is it poor? Two obvious possibilities:
Who said it was perfect? Nobody. There's a whole spectrum between "perfect" and "crappy", you know. If you were hiring somebody to design complex machinery, wouldn't you look for competence, at a bare minimum? But "The Designer" is supposedly capable of "designing" everything from quarks to galaxies, so wouldn't you expect better than the bare minimum from such an entity? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024