Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who designed the ID designer(s)?
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 125 of 396 (499758)
02-20-2009 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Stile
02-19-2009 12:12 PM


Re: Observable Laws do not point to Design
Stiles writes:
So, if "observable laws" are not restricted to a designed universe.. how can you say that such information would "point to" a designed universe? It doesn't make sense.
How can such a simple principle and question not make sense to a person that is listening?
You have heard of that guy that talks all day and never says anything. That is what this post of yours tries to do, avoid the question at all costs. Since Huntard refused to simply answer the question, Ill ask you. Is it a very real POSSIBILITY given the fact that the universe operates in the form of lawful order that it may very well have been created, Yes or No. Is there anything wrong with that deductive conclusion?
BTW, Bertot will show up for the debate, its simply that I dont have as much time in the day to devote to the site as I would like. That is if one wishes to call this topic a debate. It appears that one really has to strain at knats and swallow camels to get a discussion out of such a simple topic, but if it makes you feel youself feel better to talk in circles, please go for it.
D Bertot
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Stile, posted 02-19-2009 12:12 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Stile, posted 02-20-2009 8:47 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 126 of 396 (499760)
02-20-2009 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by onifre
02-19-2009 5:47 PM


Re: Just a bump
Onfrie writes:
But, I highley doubt you'll get an admitance from Bertot that he was wrong. You will get some kind of shitty joke though, which offends me on a personal level.
How can a very well thought out and well delivered joke such as mine always are, offend, a dirty and no talent comedian, ha ha. Rodeny Dangerfield you not boy.
You know, "That lady is not two-faced, if she were she wouldnt wear that one", "Call me when you have no class", Now thats comedy feakshow.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by onifre, posted 02-19-2009 5:47 PM onifre has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 127 of 396 (499761)
02-20-2009 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Huntard
02-19-2009 12:49 PM


Re: Observable Laws do not point to Design
Huntard writes:
I meant something that undeniably points to design, not something that can points to design as well as many other things.
So, Bertot, care to take me up on my challenge? Name ONE thing that undeniably points to design, or, if you can't admit you were talking nonsense.
Oh by all means, if the first sentence here is all you have got. It appears to both make no sense and at the same time admit the very real posibility of a designer. I guess the debate is over.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Huntard, posted 02-19-2009 12:49 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 129 of 396 (499764)
02-20-2009 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Huntard
02-20-2009 1:23 AM


Re: Just a bump
Huntard writes:
When dealing with supernatural stuff, you enter the world of religion. He has been adamant that ID is not religion, so he'd do best to avoid that argument.
But you're probably right, even IF he decides to answer me, it won't be a real answer anyway.
Your kidding me again, you honestly believe that observing and explaining design as a very real posibility in the universe along with its laws and structure is religion. I always thought it was just deductive reasoning. Again throwing words at deductive reasoning does not make it otherwise, you do understand this very real principle correct?
Isnt it interesting that you are the only one mentioning the word religion and I am not even brining it up?
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Huntard, posted 02-20-2009 1:23 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 130 of 396 (499767)
02-20-2009 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Stile
02-20-2009 8:47 AM


Re: Observable Laws do not point to Design
Stile writes:
And what you've said in no way "points to" Design. Again, it simply does not contradict Design. But, it also does not contradict a non-designed universe. Since it doesn't focus any more on one then the other, then it doesn't "point to" one or the other.
Well I am at a lose to try and answer such folly. I will take your very twisted statement here and the whole post as a YES to the answer to my simple question. So in answering the question in the affirmative, (atleast in some parts of the post),one is not irrational, delusional or insane for having good reasons for believing in a designer? Wow, where do you go from that?
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Stile, posted 02-20-2009 8:47 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Stile, posted 02-20-2009 9:15 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 132 of 396 (499771)
02-20-2009 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Stile
02-20-2009 9:15 AM


Re: Do you understand what you're saying?
Bertot writes:
Is it a very real POSSIBILITY given the fact that the universe operates in the form of lawful order that it may very well have been created, Yes or No. Is there anything wrong with that deductive conclusion?
Stile writes:
However, if we alter your question slightly:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it a theoretical POSSIBILITY given the fact that the universe operates in the form of lawful order that it may very well have been created, Yes or No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then the answer is Yes.
Then stile writes:
However, when I quite explicitely answer your question with a No:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The answer to your question is No.
Who gave you the right to alter my question to fit your answer. Since my question is one that conforms to physical realities and is not theoretical in nature (no pun intended) you have no right to rearrange my question, so the answer to my question is YES in this form:
Stile writes:
And what you've said in no way "points to" Design. Again, it simply does not contradict Design
The answer then becomes maybe yes, maybe no.
You have drawn an unwarrented conclusion in that you are assuming my question is only speculative and imaginary in nature, it is not. Its conclusions or reasons are verified agaisnt a physical property that is niether theoretical or imaginary, thus its conclusion is a not only a very real possibility, but one of great consideration, in other words it does not violate principle of reason or plausability
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Stile, posted 02-20-2009 9:15 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Stile, posted 02-20-2009 9:47 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 134 of 396 (499776)
02-20-2009 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Stile
02-20-2009 9:47 AM


Re: It's not hard, really
Stile writes:
There is a big difference in the existence between "very real possibilities" and "theoretical" possibilities. One being that real possibilities actually exist and theoretical possibilites do not. We know this because all real possibilities have some sort of verifiable, objective evidence that "points to" them as being possibilities. Until you can show this is true about the question you're proposing... then it will remain as only a theoretical possibility.
And as long as you insist on your question including the words "very real," the answer remains an emphatic NO until you're able to provide some verifiable, objective evidence that shows your possibility can actually exist outside of theoretical musings.[/qs]
In response to your quite obvious inability to distinquish between an actual argument and an imaginary one, I will try and help you. Lets put it in another question form to help you.
Does the physical universe exist?
Does the physical universe appear atleast to follow some sort of physical laws that are in motion?
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
Now while any conclusions that are derived may be inconclusive (not provable), apart from direct revelation (the scriptures)the question itself is in no way imaginary or non-structured to become theoretical, given the fact that the first two principles actually do exist. Further, given the fact that there are only two possibilities, it was designed or it was not, the physical realities, would lend as much credibility to designed as self constructed.
Warrented conclusions drawn against obvious physical realities and considering there are only really two are not imaginary or musings. You know that they are very real possibilites. Thus you insistence that my question is theoretical in simply nonsense.
There is a big difference in the existence between "very real possibilities" and "theoretical" possibilities. One being that real possibilities actually exist and theoretical possibilites do not. We know this because all real possibilities have some sort of verifiable, objective evidence that "points to" them as being possibilities
Atually you have answered your own question. The reality we are looking for at present is not God, only design. If the universe atually exists and it has laws it follows, that is real, therefore the conclusion that it may have very well have been designed IS AS REAL. If as you suggest "real possibilittes have some form of verifiable evidence, that points to them as being possibilities, then the phisical universe certainly falls within that category. Nothing musive, unwarrented, theoretical or imaginary about a designer, as you have now fully admitted.
The answer only becomes "maybe yes, maybe no" once you have shown some real, verifiable, objective evidence to support your position. Until you do that, your position remains unavoidably equal to all other purely imaginary, theoretical speculations.
What position are you searching for verfiale evidence for, for design or the existence of God. If for design, it should be wrapped up in the only two real possibilities against the physical reality of the universe and its laws. If God, then thats another topic.
If the physical universe (reality) and its laws exist, then it is obious that this serves as verfiable evidence of the real possibility of a designer, even if you dont like its conclusions.
There may be theoretical speculation about God at this point, but there is certainly no speculation about nature and its reality. Take a deep breath Stile and slow down and think about what you are trying to say, you are confusing two different ideas. Take your time son and think about it.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Stile, posted 02-20-2009 9:47 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Stile, posted 02-20-2009 10:55 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 137 by onifre, posted 02-20-2009 11:44 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 136 of 396 (499786)
02-20-2009 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Stile
02-20-2009 10:55 AM


Re: It's not hard, really
stile writes:
No.
Bertot, the only thing that EVER takes an idea out of the realm of theoretical non-existence and into the realm of "very real" reality is verifiable, objective evidence.
Being "based against objective, verifiable realities" is not enough.
Stile ever principle is based against objective, verfiable evidence. A concept or a thought or an idea, is not real or demonstratale unless it applies to the real world. Your play on words will not assist your efforts here.
The only two possibilites that do exists against reality are they were it was created or it was not.
Question; How do you think that design or creation is and became one of only two possibilites if it is not based in reality.Please answer that question. Reality and the aspects of it are what make it real and not theoretical, design that is, not God at this point. You in a hopeless situation here Stile. Physical reality and not imagination only leave us with two possibilites Stile, not our imagination. Both of which are plausible at this point until we start to look at entropy and the such like.
Conversely, if design or creation is not based in verifable reality,being only one of only two posibilites,then neither is the conclusion that the univrese APPEARS to be a product of itself, which claims also to be based in reality and on verifiable principles
You state:
The physical reality we exist within shows us that almost everything that exists is self constructed.
Your principle here is nonsesical given you own admissions about what establishes verfiable solutions and possibilities and the fact that its premise follows the same of only two logical possibilities against physical realites.
How did reality decide or leave us with only two logical solutions or possibilities? Did I just imagine design the same way you imagine self constructed, I doubt it. I would say they both have evidence in reality. I defy you demonstrate it otherwise.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Stile, posted 02-20-2009 10:55 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Stile, posted 02-20-2009 12:07 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 140 of 396 (499896)
02-21-2009 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by onifre
02-20-2009 11:44 AM


Re: It's not hard, really
Onifre writes:
Yes, it is still theoretical because you have no way of knowing if the "reality" you percieve is actually real. When you look at anything you don't see atoms or subatomic particles, their existance would be unknown to you, so how can you say for sure that you understand what you perceive to be the actual fundamental functions of the universe? You can't, hence it is a theoretical conclusion.
Right back where we started from, back to the insanity of questioing reality itself. Please go to Youtube and view the Spaceballs clip, "When will then be now", its makes about as much sense as your above comment, but atleast they know thiers is an attempt at comedy. I will not acknowledge foolish nonesense.
Would you care to deal with these contradictory statements?
First you say we are not looking for god, just "design". Then you say there is nothing musive, unwarrented, theoretical or imaginary about a "designer".
I thought you said we weren't looking for the designer(god)...?
Which is it...?
Your a knothead arent you boy? The design principle could be a result of natural prossess as well as a designer, either are possible until you get to the laws of entropy or the existence of something out of nothing principle, or matter that appears to be finite in its character sustaining and bringing itself into exsistence itself principle. Design however, by itself could be either, or, on the surface. The theist however, is warrented in conclusing a DESIGNER initially.
The obvious design in nature and the design argument are not the all in all for belief in God or a designer, it simply coorborates what we already know through the argument from existence itself and the laws that nature follows and the fact that it appears tobe contiengent on other things, so on and so forth.
The point here is, not that you or I can demonstrate this beyond any doubt, there is always doubt, no matter the weight of evidence. Its simply that the theist is more than justified in drwing such conclusions and is in no way delusional or mystical as Dawkins and others would suggest. He simply an agry little man with an agenda. Besides that he is a really poor on the spot debater.
Lets stick with design then. First, what "laws" are you talking about that aren't the reactions of interactions with other things? Be specific. Second, designed for what?
Reactions of interactions to bring about a specific SAME consistent result, then moving to the next is DESIGN knothead. The reactions of a designed motor vehicle with its other parts constituting interactions is design whether someone put it togoether or it happened naturally. I am not going to answer the second question you asked, its stupid.
I think you missed the point about the jokes being lame, not funny and hacky. I'm only offended at your shitty attempts to be humorous. And, if you consider me a comedian you established that I have a talent, whether you enjoy it or not. Seems like the contradictions keep on coming!
I guess your right, I was worng here, Used Car salesmen and Politicians also have a talent, if we are going to go by their namesake, excuse me comedian. You really should try and leave your comedy out of your attempts to make arguments, it gets inthe way of you making sense.
Thats a good thing 'cause he's fucking dead.
Uh oh, I think you walked right into that one. Thats the point, even dead he is funnier and makes more sense than yourself.
Son if you want to adlib with a master such as myself, you should find some descent material. Hawkeye Pierce, your not.
Yeah in the Catskills during the 50's. It's 2009 you lame ass, get with the times pops.
How ironic you should make such a comment. Yesterday I was going down the road listening to Radio Runs, Jack Benny and those guys, thinking why does it have to deteriorate to you filthy, no class, no talent bums. Everything has to be campared to the dirty or the filthy today or its not funny and ofcurse thats because they have no imagination or talent to do otherwise. Perhaps you should pull out thier tapes and learn from the masters.
BTW, have a nice day.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by onifre, posted 02-20-2009 11:44 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by onifre, posted 02-21-2009 11:57 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 141 of 396 (499897)
02-21-2009 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Stile
02-20-2009 12:07 PM


Re: Again, and again, and again
Stile I will try and get to your latest post during the course of the day.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Stile, posted 02-20-2009 12:07 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 145 of 396 (500033)
02-22-2009 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Stile
02-20-2009 12:07 PM


Re: Again, and again, and again
Edited by AdminModulous, : Off topic posts hidden - two Admin warnings should have been enough

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Stile, posted 02-20-2009 12:07 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 146 of 396 (500034)
02-22-2009 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by onifre
02-21-2009 11:57 AM


Re: I will give civility a try...for admins sake.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminModulous, : Off topic post hidden, press peek to see it, you may take it to a PNT or some other topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by onifre, posted 02-21-2009 11:57 AM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by AdminModulous, posted 02-22-2009 9:27 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 148 of 396 (500038)
02-22-2009 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by AdminModulous
02-22-2009 9:27 AM


Re: Final warning
Admin writes:
Bertot - and anybody else too - read the admin messages that have been recently posted in this thread. Failure to do so will result in suspensions. Bertot - and anybody else too - read the admin messages that have been recently posted in this thread. Failure to do so will result in suspensions.
I dont mind moving it to another topic or thread, I however am not experienced enough in you proceedures to suggest where or whatever. I would request that maybe you bring my last two posts to Stile and Onfire out of hiding into another thread area, or whatever. Just a thought.
Or perhaps you could move all the relevant posts of late by myself, Onifre, Stile and others from that thread to another, so everyone can keep up with where we are at, is that possible.
How about the one with only 21 posts to its name, that would give us plenty time, eh?
D Bertot
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by AdminModulous, posted 02-22-2009 9:27 AM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by AdminModulous, posted 02-22-2009 10:24 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 150 of 396 (500041)
02-22-2009 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by AdminModulous
02-22-2009 10:24 AM


Re: Final warning
Can I, since I saved them in Word, copy and Paste, the last two, and post them to the thread with only 21 posts?
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by AdminModulous, posted 02-22-2009 10:24 AM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by AdminModulous, posted 02-22-2009 10:44 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 152 of 396 (500045)
02-22-2009 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by AdminModulous
02-22-2009 10:44 AM


Re: Final warning
Ok Ill move my latest post to that thread and let them pick from there, I am sure it will turn in a discussion abou the God of the Bible anyway.
Onifre and Stile, its moved to Design and physical evidence thread, if you care.
Thanks D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by AdminModulous, posted 02-22-2009 10:44 AM AdminModulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024