too intelligent to actually be intelligent?

One problem is that we come from different starting points. I think that I can safely say that you believe that the physical is all there is, whereas I believe there is more than just the physical. I wouldn't agree that computers and humans are both bound by the same physical rules. I see humans as having both physical and metaphysical aspects. It seems to me that the conflict only exists if you are assuming that the IDer is limited by the same physical restrictions that we are.I see the computer as being 100% physical, humans as combination of physical and metaphysical and the IDer as being 100% metaphysical. I see time as being only a physical limitation and not a metaphysical limitation, which in my view eliminates the conflict.I want to emphasize again that this position is not scientific and I am opposed to the ID movement when it suggests that it is. I have no idea how much science can even eventually resolve. Is there a point where the physical ends and the metaphysical begins? The thing is, if you believe that nothing but the physical exists then you view things in a different light than one who believes that there is a spiritual side to life. I see a Dad lovingly holding his child and I would feel a sense of peace that I would assign to the fact that our IDer is the root cause of that sense of peace. (I am making an assumption here again that you believe there is nothing beyond the physical, so I apologise if that is an incorrect assumption.) You might feel that same sense of peace but you would assume that the feeling comes because of some neurological function.I see nothing but traces of an IDer in this world. The thing is once again it goes back to our starting point. Is the physical all there is or not?

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

If the non-physical is to be accepted, surely there must be some kind of solid evidence for it. Otherwise, why should one not regard ideas about non-physical things as intellectual aberrations arising from tolerably obvious historical processes?

Wouldn't that be something of an oxy-moron? It does provide an answer to questions that science hasn't as yet answered. Why is there eomething instead of nothing? What is consciousness? What is emotion? However, I'm repeating myself.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

An instance of phylosophy of the gaps. Not a very impressive starting point in my opinion. What wlil happen if science answers some previously unanswered question? will your phylosophy become irrelevant? what will you do if it happens during your life-time?

Science has done an unbelievable job of sorting out the material world. As Lisa Randall of MIT and Harvard writes,"we understand far more about the world than we did just a few short years ago - and yet we are more uncertain about the true nature of the universe thanever before".Even if science can demostrate how the first cell was formed, or what happened at T=0, can it tell us why those things happened at all?

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

May be 'why' is the wrong question to ask.

quote:

---

Even if science can demostrate how the first cell was formed, or what happened at T=0, can it tell us why those things happened at all?

---

Perhaps they happened for no particular reason.Your preference for a superstition that some supernatural actor is responsible for this or that is simply a symptom of your discomfort with ambiguity.Where is it written that the Universe owes you any explanations for why it exists, anyway?

Hell, a deformed fossil was just discovered a short while back. Linky.

In the end I suppose that "why" is more important than how, but that is a subjective opinion.It seems to me though that the Atheistic view of things is no better than the YEC crowd. Young Earth Creationism rejects science and Atheism rejects philosophy and theology.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Perhaps,it is just an unwillingness to believe things without good reason for doing so, and a willingness to admit it when something is not yet understood.If that amounts to rejecting theology, I'm inclined to agree with you. Philosophy comes in many different flavours, some of which are more useful than others. To which were you referring?

Specifically any philosophy that disagrees with the Atheistic worldview. It seems to me that materialism doesn't accept anything as evidence that can't be verified empirically.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

As I stated, I am done debating. The reason I quit
debating is because I quickly realized it is impossible
to win. No matter what I come back with you would find
a way to keep putting your faith in Darwin- and
no matter what you come back with I will keep putting
my faith in Jesus Christ.When you push all the information from both sides off
to one side this is what your left with; either way you
lose and either way I win!Lets say for a minute you are right and I am wrong.
When we die thats it- we both lose in that sense but
by following the teachings of Jesus as put forth in
the bible- I have grown away from a selfish way of
thinking and tried to learn to put others before myself.
I have reasons to be a giver and to be honest. I have
reasons to not waist my life getting drunk and using drugs.
I have reasons to live a loving and moral life.A follower of Darwin is all about the survival of the fittest
has no moral standard because right and wrong is in the eye
of the beholder only ie;Moral relativism. My point is this:
What do you win if you are right? Might as well live with all
the gusto and self-indulgence you can cause when its over-
its over.What if your wrong? If what Jesus Christ said is true and
you die in your sins- you will be completely seperated from
your maker for all of eternity and sent to a place HE called
the 'lake of fire.'Whatever the truth is, does what you or I think about it
change it? No. If we go to lights out when we die- does it
matter if I think I will be with God? No. If we have to face
God when we die does it matter if you thought it would be
lights out? No. Opinion doesn't change truth.PUTTING YOUR FAITH IN DARWIN: Either you die and thats it-
or when you die you get thrown into the lake of fire.
I fail to see a long term up side.
This is why I say "either way you lose."IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO LEARN HOW TO HAVE A
PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PERSON WHO CREATED
YOU AND HAVE ASSURANCE OF ETERNAL LIFE- PLEASE SEE
MY E-MAIL ADDRESS UNDER MY PROFILE AND CONTACT ME.LOVE PEACE JOY PURPOSE ETERNAL-LIFELike it or not I will be praying for all you members

The topic is whether or not life shows signs of being designed by a conscious entity. One way of doing this is to do the following:(1) Give a rigorous, non-ambiguous, measurable way of determining whether something is or is not designed.(2) Show that life (or some feature of it) has the quality of being designed according to definition (1).(3) Show that something can only possess the quality of being designed according to definition (1) through the intervention of a conscious entity.You have failed to do this. To be more specific, your attempt at (1) consists of: Gosh, it sure looks designed to me! And your attempt at (3) consists of: Gosh, I can't imagine how this could happen without a designer!Sorry, but the whole problem with your approach is that it is a well-known fallacy called the appeal to ignorance. You set up your own personal criteria (namely, your own failure to understand the processes involved) for determining when you think it's obvious that something must be the product of design and then complain when the rest of us are not impressed with your poor reasoning.What you believe is up to you, of course. You can even believe that something is so obvious that the rest of us are dolts for not seeing it. But the rest of the world is going to just walk around you while you stand raving on the street corner.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

quote:

---

It seems to me though that the Atheistic view of things is no better than the YEC crowd. Young Earth Creationism rejects science and Atheism rejects philosophy and theology.

---

Atheism doesn't reject philosophy.Remember that post where I told you about the philosophers I don't reject?But anyway, the point is that science does not accept philosophical answers to scientific questions.You have, in this thread, repeatedly tried to insert your personal philosophy as an answer to various scientific questions.That's a no-no in science.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

GDR Well I can appreciate what a disadvantage that must be, since it is not a requirement of interaction with the physical world that you
"Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer"Whatever the intelligent designer is that ID'er ,by dint of being complex, must be amenable to the hypothesis else the hypothesis fails in its role as an explanation. Well,as yet we have had no difficulty explaining things with the existence of the interaction of the four fundamental forces. There is no phenomena that we cannot apply the parameters of these forces to and find an explanation that works to explain things quite well. Since no metaphysical evidence is available that is unambiguous or even testable it is folly to assume the existence of such. Just because we say that it cannot be ruled out does not make it a viable source of understanding since we can make up any scenario no matter its level of silliness and still say that it cannot be ruled out. Do you delude yourself into thinking that I am incapable of feeling that same sense of peace and that you, by believing it to be something originating in an ID'er to which you can offer no evidence, have some greater appreciation of the event?
I have been a father to 2 families and have witnessed their births and watched with huge delight at their growing and learning and experiencing no less than you yourself may have in the course of your life. Please explain how this makes for a cogent arguement in favor of an Id'ers existence. I do not understand how this supports the debate we are having here.