Intelligent Design: Viable Theory or Religious Rewording?

• BCSbunk

  Cleveland Buck wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote: The next is a line of bullshit. I do not believe the Universe came from nothing that is a strawman.

  Where do you think the universe came from?

  I have no idea. You see I am intellectually honest and do not make up things to cover what I do not know.
• majorspark

  

  BCSbunk wrote:

  Cleveland Buck wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote: The next is a line of bullshit. I do not believe the Universe came from nothing that is a strawman.

  Where do you think the universe came from?

  I have no idea. You see I am intellectually honest and do not make up things to cover what I do not know.

  So are you saying that it is possible that the "something" that the universe came from was an intellegent being?
• BCSbunk

  HitsRus wrote: As for that video....if you actually think that has any relevance to what I believe, or what belief in God is about...you are the one who is delusional. But we knew that anyway.
  
  Speaking of delusional....can you show me any people on this thread that think ID should be taught in science in public school?
  Are you saying that people who believe in God are not reasonable?

  It does not matter what you believe obviously you are not a christian so the video does not apply. However you are using the term god in a different sense than christians do or other religions.
  

  Speaking of delusional....can you show me any people on this thread that think ID should be taught in science in public school?

  Non-sequitur. You are implying that I am delusional because no one on this thread think ID should be taught in school? I simply expressed my opinion regardless of what others think. There are those that are fighting in court that ID be taught in science class I am addressing THAT particular situation.
  
  http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4516
  
  Just one article of tons of schools and people wanting to teach IDiocy in the science classroom. ID is nothing more than religious rewording.
  

  Are you saying that people who believe in God are not reasonable?

  In that area it is not reasonable at all. It is incoherent. No one has even given an ontology of what a god is.
  
  Since you disagree with christians on what god is maybe you can enlighten everyone to what exactly a god is?
  
  Not what it does or how it acts but WHAT IS IT. What is a god? What are a gods primary attributes.
  
  This is where the discussion begins. Because in order to discuss a topic we need to know what it is we are discussing. I and many others have no idea what a god is so please tell me.
  
  Once you give a complete ontology of this concept you speak of then we can start to scratch the surface of whether or not it exists.
• BCSbunk

  majorspark wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote:

  Cleveland Buck wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote: The next is a line of bullshit. I do not believe the Universe came from nothing that is a strawman.

  Where do you think the universe came from?

  I have no idea. You see I am intellectually honest and do not make up things to cover what I do not know.

  So are you saying that it is possible that the "something" that the universe came from was an intellegent being?

  I am not saying the Universe came from anything at all.
  
  It could be eternal. It may have always been. I don't know.
• jmog

  BCSbunk wrote:

  HitsRus wrote:

  FairwoodKing wrote: I am an atheist yet I have never tried to convert anyone to my way of thinking. I believe in reason and science and religionists believe in mythology and ancient superstition. Yet I am supposed to respect their beliefs but they are not supposed to respect mine. What I'm saying is the truth. This is really what it is like for people like me.
  
  My job is to fight this bullshit. If that makes me elitist, then so be it.

  I believe in reason and science AND God, so let's not make such broad generalizations that "religionists believe in mythology", otherwise I'll play the same game and skewer you for believing that you and your universe just magically appeared out of nothing.
  I can understand that by your orientation you are put out and irritated by those 'religionists' that try to sell their brand to you, but confine your disdain for those 'religionists' and not others that have through either experience or reason...think differently than you. Keep in mind that atheists can be just as annoying as religious zealots.

  You first sentence is contradictory. What is a god? A reasonable person does not use non-cognitive terms as though they exist or are meaningful.
  
  The next is a line of bullshit. I do not believe the Universe came from nothing that is a strawman.
  
  You see not all religious people are annoying like the Amish or the Quakers or the ones who do not try to get idiotic things like ID in public schools. That is when we atheists have to stand up and say your delusion is fine when you keep it to yourselves.

  1. His first sentence is NOT contradictory. Many MANY people who are scientists and believe in reason/logic also believe in a supreme being. Just because YOU don't believe its possible, doesn't make it fact.
  
  2. Then what do you believe was here BEFORE the Big Bang? If you don't believe the universe came from nothing, what was here before the Big Bang?
• jmog

  BCSbunk wrote:
  
  So then those that are not delusional are elitists when they try to point out that someone is indeed delusional.
  
  Here is something that shows the delusion.
  
  

  Well, that didn't take long, 2:16 in and he's already got the Bible WAY wrong.
  
  When he starts listing "sins" and "God's rules" like being aloud to buy/sell slaves, beating children with a rod (aka spanking), women not being aloud to teach, and killing anyone who believes in a different God.
  
  He is, just like many do, confusing God's laws, with Jewish/country laws of that time.
  
  Leviticus is a book full of Jewish laws, aka the country/nation of Israel's laws, not God's laws. It is a historical book, not a "this is what God wants you to know is sin" book.
  
  The "beating a child with a rod" is talking about spanking, and quite frankly its pretty accurate "spare the rod, spoil the child". Its not advocating for beating a kid senseless, its calling for spanking when needed, and in today's society I think you can usually tell kids that grow up with "time outs" only vs those that grow up with a few swats on the butt.
  
  The Bible doesn't say women aren't aloud to teach at all, it is saying that a woman shouldn't be a pastor/priest over men, huge difference.
  
  The "kill those who don't believe in the real God" part, it was Moses talking to the Israelites, not God giving his rules, again, a historical look at the nation of Israel, not a rule from God.
  
  He just goes downhill from there, I don't even want to get into his "make the universe look old" or the "bad design of anatomy" BS.
  
  His talk on "Adam and Eve" is hilarious. 1st, they did die, just awhile after that. They were originally to live forever but due to eating the fruit they eventually died. 2, it wasn't just a "snake", it was, according to the Bible, Lucifer in the form of a snake, so yeah, it would be able to talk.
  
  Let's not forget that he basically said the NT was written by "non-eye witnesses". BS, Matthew, Peter, John, James, Jude and Paul were all eye-witnesses and amongst those 6 were all but 3 of the New Testament books written. Luke and Mark are the only non-confirmed eye witness and they wrote Mark, Luke and Acts. FYI, most scholars believe Mark was Peter's scribe and wrote 1st/2nd Peter as well as Peter's account of the life of Jesus as his Gospel of Mark. The theory goes that Peter was not literate (couldn't write) and Mark wrote Peter's eye witness account down for him. This is not confirmed, so for now I'll keep the book of Mark as non-eye witness.
  
  This moron should at least google some of this crap before he says it.
  
  You two supporting this joker have just lost a ton of credibility, he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about and is using so many talking points that have no merit its funny.
• HitsRus

  

  "Quote:
  "Are you saying that people who believe in God are not reasonable?"
  
  BCSbunk wrote>>>>
  "In that area it is not reasonable at all. It is incoherent. No one has even given an ontology of what a god is.
  
  Since you disagree with christians on what god is maybe you can enlighten everyone to what exactly a god is?
  
  Not what it does or how it acts but WHAT IS IT. What is a god? What are a gods primary attributes.
  
  This is where the discussion begins. Because in order to discuss a topic we need to know what it is we are discussing. I and many others have no idea what a god is so please tell me.
  
  Once you give a complete ontology of this concept you speak of then we can start to scratch the surface of whether or not it exists. "
  
  
  
  I don't mean to be condescending, but if you want an ontology...you could start by researching Aquinas or Descartes...not that any of that would have any relevance for someone limited to empiricism like yourself, or that you would accept them given that you limit your reasoning on sensory phenomenon. Your demands for descriptions of "what a God is", his attributes etc...are rooted in anthropromorphic characterizations of something that is clearly not definable empirically. You are like a dog demanding that I explain "redness."...I'd have to go beyond your sensory ability, and you don't have the mental wherewithal to construct what is beyond that sensory experience. Surely, to a dog, the color red does not exist....even though you and I know it does.
  
  You like to tout evolution as scientific 'fact'...or at least as a viable theory...and so do I. You must also be aware of empirical evidence supporting string theory, M- theory.... the concept that there is more than 1 universe...a multiverse...and multiple dimensions within those. Such a phenomenon would rationally suggest more than a random happening..a creation...(ah, but I anthropromorphise)and a creator, given our concept of causality. Such a being, capable of such things would necessarily be capable of moving through his creation...he would be omnipotent, omnipresent etc in relation to his creation...all the things religious people attribute to a "God". We need not take causality any further....our relationship is to the creator of our particular universe. His origins are irrelevant to the discussion because it is outside of our universe.
  
  FYI...I am Christian...Catholic to be exact. I believe in the Trinity... God "the father"..the creator. His will and direction and purpose of the universe....the spirit. And his manifestation on earth...the Christ.
  
  The Church allows one to believe in evolution...string theory...even alien life forms....or you can just accept the teachings of christ "with a child like faith". The universe is a big place...you don't have to get hung up on minutiae
• BCSbunk

  HitsRus wrote: "Quote:
  "Are you saying that people who believe in God are not reasonable?"
  
  BCSbunk wrote>>>>
  "In that area it is not reasonable at all. It is incoherent. No one has even given an ontology of what a god is.
  
  Since you disagree with christians on what god is maybe you can enlighten everyone to what exactly a god is?
  
  Not what it does or how it acts but WHAT IS IT. What is a god? What are a gods primary attributes.
  
  This is where the discussion begins. Because in order to discuss a topic we need to know what it is we are discussing. I and many others have no idea what a god is so please tell me.
  
  Once you give a complete ontology of this concept you speak of then we can start to scratch the surface of whether or not it exists. "
  
  
  
  I don't mean to be condescending, but if you want an ontology...you could start by researching Aquinas or Descartes...not that any of that would have any relevance for someone limited to empiricism like yourself, or that you would accept them given that you limit your reasoning on sensory phenomenon. Your demands for descriptions of "what a God is", his attributes etc...are rooted in anthropromorphic characterizations of something that is clearly not definable empirically. You are like a dog demanding that I explain "redness."...I'd have to go beyond your sensory ability, and you don't have the mental wherewithal to construct what is beyond that sensory experience. Surely, to a dog, the color red does not exist....even though you and I know it does.
  
  You like to tout evolution as scientific 'fact'...or at least as a viable theory...and so do I. You must also be aware of empirical evidence supporting string theory, M- theory.... the concept that there is more than 1 universe...a multiverse...and multiple dimensions within those. Such a phenomenon would rationally suggest more than a random happening..a creation...(ah, but I anthropromorphise)and a creator, given our concept of causality. Such a being, capable of such things would necessarily be capable of moving through his creation...he would be omnipotent, omnipresent etc in relation to his creation...all the things religious people attribute to a "God". We need not take causality any further....our relationship is to the creator of our particular universe. His origins are irrelevant to the discussion because it is outside of our universe.
  
  FYI...I am Christian...Catholic to be exact. I believe in the Trinity... God "the father"..the creator. His will and direction and purpose of the universe....the spirit. And his manifestation on earth...the Christ.
  
  The Church allows one to believe in evolution...string theory...even alien life forms....or you can just accept the teachings of christ "with a child like faith". The universe is a big place...you don't have to get hung up on minutiae

  Appealing to Aquinas and Descartes seriously? That was before science was so advanced that we can shift through the bullshit. Nice try though.
  
  There is no ontology of what a god is. There are none. I do not want to know what god is NOT I want to know what it is. The primary attributes and of course you have failed to produce this crucial element of existants.
  
  Also your analogy of redness is terrible. Redness is a result of being red.
  
  Red is a color in the spectrum which has a wavelength that can be detected by science.
  
  Speaking of Empiricism here is something that I find interesting.
  
  The Dragon In My Garage
  by Carl Sagan
  http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
  "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
  
  Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
  
  "Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
  
  "Where's the dragon?" you ask.
  
  "Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
  
  You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
  
  "Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
  
  Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
  
  "Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
  
  You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
  
  "Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
  
  Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."
  
  Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
  
  Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.
  
  Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
  
  You arguments for a god (whatever one is) fall into this they are worthless and weak and nothing more than rationalizations.
• BCSbunk

  HitsRus wrote: "Quote:
  FYI...I am Christian...Catholic to be exact. I believe in the Trinity... God "the father"..the creator. His will and direction and purpose of the universe....the spirit. And his manifestation on earth...the Christ.
  
  The Church allows one to believe in evolution...string theory...even alien life forms....or you can just accept the teachings of christ "with a child like faith". The universe is a big place...you don't have to get hung up on minutiae

  I believe in the Trinity...

  So you claim to be one of reason but believe that 3=1?
  
  That is not reasonable by any measure of the understanding of reason.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  BCSbunk wrote: That is not reasonable by any measure of the understanding of reason.

  You believe the universe has always existed, which is impossible. Is that reasonable?
  
  Or is that you don't know if the universe has always existed or not, or how it was created in the latter case, but all you do know is that it wasn't created by an intelligent creator, right? This is reasonable?
• HitsRus

  

  I'm not going to waste space posting a three level 'reply' but when I talk about a dog not being able to fully understand 'redness' I'm talking fact not just analogy. Even if he had the mental and physical capabilities of measuring wavelength he would not be able to identify that particular wavelength as 'red'....In the same way, you cannot tell me what the color of a partiicular wavelength of microwave is. 'Visible' light is species specific. Red exists as a visible color...even if the dog does not physically detect it. Pinning existence on what we can detect empirically is the height of hubris....as if we assume that we are the pinnacle of creation! lol. What we can't measure doesn't exist! lol.
  
  BCSbunk wrote...
  "You arguments for a god (whatever one is) fall into this they are worthless and weak and nothing more than rationalizations. "
  
  Finally you are partially correct(minus the worthless and weak)...they are exactly "rationalist" in nature....but you will note that I added the empirical in my argument. This is essentially what Kant did when he 'merged' the competing philosophies of Rationalism and Empiricism.
  
  As for the Dragon argument....again the misconception that God's existence can be disproved by defeating the anthropromorphisms used to convey the message. My example of the concept of the Trinity is non anthropromorphic, but the church uses the concept of three persons in one to convey the message that there is a creator, a purpose and a manifestation here on earth. It does not speak only to Philosophy Phds from Stanford with 140 I.Q.s...it also has to communicate with sophomoric students from tOSU, people without high school degrees, and,... in the early days of the church...simple uneducated peasants. What is important is not the preciseness, but the message of relationship to the creator. For many, ritual, tradition and allegories help in that regard.
• BCSbunk

  Cleveland Buck wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote: That is not reasonable by any measure of the understanding of reason.

  You believe the universe has always existed, which is impossible. Is that reasonable?
  
  Or is that you don't know if the universe has always existed or not, or how it was created in the latter case, but all you do know is that it wasn't created by an intelligent creator, right? This is reasonable?

  I never said that. I said it is possible the Universe is eternal and again followed with I DON"T KNOW. So please do not try to misrepresent my position.
  
  So then lets get this straight a god(whatever that is) can be eternal but the universe cannot?
  
  They call that special pleading.
• BCSbunk

  HitsRus wrote: I'm not going to waste space posting a three level 'reply' but when I talk about a dog not being able to fully understand 'redness' I'm talking fact not just analogy. Even if he had the mental and physical capabilities of measuring wavelength he would not be able to identify that particular wavelength as 'red'....In the same way, you cannot tell me what the color of a partiicular wavelength of microwave is. 'Visible' light is species specific. Red exists as a visible color...even if the dog does not physically detect it. Pinning existence on what we can detect empirically is the height of hubris....as if we assume that we are the pinnacle of creation! lol. What we can't measure doesn't exist! lol.
  
  BCSbunk wrote...
  "You arguments for a god (whatever one is) fall into this they are worthless and weak and nothing more than rationalizations. "
  
  Finally you are partially correct(minus the worthless and weak)...they are exactly "rationalist" in nature....but you will note that I added the empirical in my argument. This is essentially what Kant did when he 'merged' the competing philosophies of Rationalism and Empiricism.
  
  As for the Dragon argument....again the misconception that God's existence can be disproved by defeating the anthropromorphisms used to convey the message. My example of the concept of the Trinity is non anthropromorphic, but the church uses the concept of three persons in one to convey the message that there is a creator, a purpose and a manifestation here on earth. It does not speak only to Philosophy Phds from Stanford with 140 I.Q.s...it also has to communicate with sophomoric students from tOSU, people without high school degrees, and,... in the early days of the church...simple uneducated peasants. What is important is not the preciseness, but the message of relationship to the creator. For many, ritual, tradition and allegories help in that regard.

  
  An elegant concession speech.
  
  
  You appeal to well just because we can't see it, touch it, hear it or in any way shape or form detect it, it might be there.
  
  Well I can apply that utter nonsense to many things and need to give them equal rank. Fairies, Elves, Rakshasha's, Djinn, Leprechauns.
  
  Well yes we must earnestly be fair and since we cannot trust our senses those things could be out there and better yet they might hold more truth that your version of a god(whatever that is)
  
  Yes lets abandon science and empiricism to embrace whatever the human mind can invent that is total bullshit and does not exist.
  
  Your god(whatever that is) deserves no greater place in your world of fantasy than the above or unicorns or Fey, or Dryads etc.
  
  Perhaps the Greek gods (whatever they are) are the real ones let us brainstorm on the possiblity of the Greek gods.
  
  I think I will take empiricism thank you very much you can stick with the world of Unicorns as they may hold some great secret that could cure all the ills of the world so please hurry and go out and try to communicate with one.
  
  Please do not say Unicorns do not exist or I will pull out the magical end all be all of

  Pinning existence on what we can detect empirically is the height of hubris....as if we assume that we are the pinnacle of creation! lol. What we can't measure doesn't exist! lol.

  That is also a strawman.
  
  Who said we are the pinnacle of creation? Is that not what the bible says? I certainly do not believe we are the pinnacle of creation.
• ManO'War

  

  I watched a show on the History Channel a few days ago about the Bible, and they stated that all of the Bible was not written down, except for one part that was deleted (hmmmm?), until at least 30 years after Jesus' death.
  
  So now Jmog not only knows more than all of the collective scientific minds, but also the Bible Historians.
  
  We should be honored to be in the presence of such a great man...maybe even a "God"!
• HitsRus

  

  Of course "you don't know", because your acceptance of existence is based solely on what you can experience and measure. Considering your are a simple 3 dimensional being operating in a strictly linear time frame, you don't know a whole lot. If you want to claim "academic honesty" than you must also admit that your empirical data cannot disprove God, and that rational, intuitive constructs of the existence of God is a least as academically valid and probably more plausible than yours. There are plenty of examples in mathematics and science where something was theorized and postulated because it ought to be that way....and the proof came later. It is not necessary to put the horse before the cart in such matters.
  That such discussion is not suitable for a science class is a no brainer. For the umpteeth time...no one on this thread that has argued the existence of God and Intelligent design, has stated that such a discussion be include in science class....oinly that you can believe in science and God at the same time.
• HitsRus

  

  BCSbunk wrote:

  HitsRus wrote: I'm not going to waste space posting a three level 'reply' but when I talk about a dog not being able to fully understand 'redness' I'm talking fact not just analogy. Even if he had the mental and physical capabilities of measuring wavelength he would not be able to identify that particular wavelength as 'red'....In the same way, you cannot tell me what the color of a partiicular wavelength of microwave is. 'Visible' light is species specific. Red exists as a visible color...even if the dog does not physically detect it. Pinning existence on what we can detect empirically is the height of hubris....as if we assume that we are the pinnacle of creation! lol. What we can't measure doesn't exist! lol.
  
  BCSbunk wrote...
  "You arguments for a god (whatever one is) fall into this they are worthless and weak and nothing more than rationalizations. "
  
  Finally you are partially correct(minus the worthless and weak)...they are exactly "rationalist" in nature....but you will note that I added the empirical in my argument. This is essentially what Kant did when he 'merged' the competing philosophies of Rationalism and Empiricism.
  
  As for the Dragon argument....again the misconception that God's existence can be disproved by defeating the anthropromorphisms used to convey the message. My example of the concept of the Trinity is non anthropromorphic, but the church uses the concept of three persons in one to convey the message that there is a creator, a purpose and a manifestation here on earth. It does not speak only to Philosophy Phds from Stanford with 140 I.Q.s...it also has to communicate with sophomoric students from tOSU, people without high school degrees, and,... in the early days of the church...simple uneducated peasants. What is important is not the preciseness, but the message of relationship to the creator. For many, ritual, tradition and allegories help in that regard.

  
  An elegant concession speech.
  
  
  You appeal to well just because we can't see it, touch it, hear it or in any way shape or form detect it, it might be there.
  
  Well I can apply that utter nonsense to many things and need to give them equal rank. Fairies, Elves, Rakshasha's, Djinn, Leprechauns.
  
  Well yes we must earnestly be fair and since we cannot trust our senses those things could be out there and better yet they might hold more truth that your version of a god(whatever that is)
  
  Yes lets abandon science and empiricism to embrace whatever the human mind can invent that is total bullshit and does not exist.
  
  Your god(whatever that is) deserves no greater place in your world of fantasy than the above or unicorns or Fey, or Dryads etc.
  
  Perhaps the Greek gods (whatever they are) are the real ones let us brainstorm on the possiblity of the Greek gods.
  
  I think I will take empiricism thank you very much you can stick with the world of Unicorns as they may hold some great secret that could cure all the ills of the world so please hurry and go out and try to communicate with one.
  
  Please do not say Unicorns do not exist or I will pull out the magical end all be all of

  Pinning existence on what we can detect empirically is the height of hubris....as if we assume that we are the pinnacle of creation! lol. What we can't measure doesn't exist! lol.

  That is also a strawman.
  
  Who said we are the pinnacle of creation? Is that not what the bible says? I certainly do not believe we are the pinnacle of creation.

• HitsRus

  

  BCSbunk wrote:

  HitsRus wrote: I'm not going to waste space posting a three level 'reply' but when I talk about a dog not being able to fully understand 'redness' I'm talking fact not just analogy. Even if he had the mental and physical capabilities of measuring wavelength he would not be able to identify that particular wavelength as 'red'....In the same way, you cannot tell me what the color of a partiicular wavelength of microwave is. 'Visible' light is species specific. Red exists as a visible color...even if the dog does not physically detect it. Pinning existence on what we can detect empirically is the height of hubris....as if we assume that we are the pinnacle of creation! lol. What we can't measure doesn't exist! lol.
  
  BCSbunk wrote...
  "You arguments for a god (whatever one is) fall into this they are worthless and weak and nothing more than rationalizations. "
  
  Finally you are partially correct(minus the worthless and weak)...they are exactly "rationalist" in nature....but you will note that I added the empirical in my argument. This is essentially what Kant did when he 'merged' the competing philosophies of Rationalism and Empiricism.
  
  As for the Dragon argument....again the misconception that God's existence can be disproved by defeating the anthropromorphisms used to convey the message. My example of the concept of the Trinity is non anthropromorphic, but the church uses the concept of three persons in one to convey the message that there is a creator, a purpose and a manifestation here on earth. It does not speak only to Philosophy Phds from Stanford with 140 I.Q.s...it also has to communicate with sophomoric students from tOSU, people without high school degrees, and,... in the early days of the church...simple uneducated peasants. What is important is not the preciseness, but the message of relationship to the creator. For many, ritual, tradition and allegories help in that regard.

  
  An elegant concession speech.
  
  
  You appeal to well just because we can't see it, touch it, hear it or in any way shape or form detect it, it might be there.
  
  Well I can apply that utter nonsense to many things and need to give them equal rank. Fairies, Elves, Rakshasha's, Djinn, Leprechauns.
  
  Well yes we must earnestly be fair and since we cannot trust our senses those things could be out there and better yet they might hold more truth that your version of a god(whatever that is)
  
  Yes lets abandon science and empiricism to embrace whatever the human mind can invent that is total bullshit and does not exist.
  
  Your god(whatever that is) deserves no greater place in your world of fantasy than the above or unicorns or Fey, or Dryads etc.
  
  Perhaps the Greek gods (whatever they are) are the real ones let us brainstorm on the possiblity of the Greek gods.
  
  I think I will take empiricism thank you very much you can stick with the world of Unicorns as they may hold some great secret that could cure all the ills of the world so please hurry and go out and try to communicate with one.
  
  Please do not say Unicorns do not exist or I will pull out the magical end all be all of

  Pinning existence on what we can detect empirically is the height of hubris....as if we assume that we are the pinnacle of creation! lol. What we can't measure doesn't exist! lol.

  That is also a strawman.
  
  Who said we are the pinnacle of creation? Is that not what the bible says? I certainly do not believe we are the pinnacle of creation.

  
  strawman...hahaha. look at the pot! Your argument is almost entirely composed of strawmen.
  Unicorn's, fairies, dragons....don't see anyone here arguing there existence.....Don't see anyone here saying that empiricism be abandonded in entirety...only that as a stand alone way of reasoning it falls short.
  
  
  You demanded an ontology...and I gave you two. That you can't/don't or won't accept or understand them within your own narrow minded empirical world is not my fault.
  
  
  And yes you do infer we are the 'pinnacle' if what you accept as 'existing' is only what YOU can detect.
• ManO'War

  

  If the "simple 3 dimensional beings" cannot detect "god", then how can you say it exists???
  
  If that's the case then you can say anthing exists that your mind can conjur up...even a "god".
  
  Which brings us back to the fact that "god" was created in man's mind, and will cease to exist once we do.
• HitsRus

  

  ^^^no it doesn't bring us 'back" you just haven't read what I posted earlier in the this monstrous thread...and I'm not going to take the time to post it again.
• BCSbunk

  [php]

  HitsRus wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote:

  HitsRus wrote: I'm not going to waste space posting a three level 'reply' but when I talk about a dog not being able to fully understand 'redness' I'm talking fact not just analogy. Even if he had the mental and physical capabilities of measuring wavelength he would not be able to identify that particular wavelength as 'red'....In the same way, you cannot tell me what the color of a partiicular wavelength of microwave is. 'Visible' light is species specific. Red exists as a visible color...even if the dog does not physically detect it. Pinning existence on what we can detect empirically is the height of hubris....as if we assume that we are the pinnacle of creation! lol. What we can't measure doesn't exist! lol.
  
  BCSbunk wrote...
  "You arguments for a god (whatever one is) fall into this they are worthless and weak and nothing more than rationalizations. "
  
  Finally you are partially correct(minus the worthless and weak)...they are exactly "rationalist" in nature....but you will note that I added the empirical in my argument. This is essentially what Kant did when he 'merged' the competing philosophies of Rationalism and Empiricism.
  
  As for the Dragon argument....again the misconception that God's existence can be disproved by defeating the anthropromorphisms used to convey the message. My example of the concept of the Trinity is non anthropromorphic, but the church uses the concept of three persons in one to convey the message that there is a creator, a purpose and a manifestation here on earth. It does not speak only to Philosophy Phds from Stanford with 140 I.Q.s...it also has to communicate with sophomoric students from tOSU, people without high school degrees, and,... in the early days of the church...simple uneducated peasants. What is important is not the preciseness, but the message of relationship to the creator. For many, ritual, tradition and allegories help in that regard.

  
  An elegant concession speech.
  
  
  You appeal to well just because we can't see it, touch it, hear it or in any way shape or form detect it, it might be there.
  
  Well I can apply that utter nonsense to many things and need to give them equal rank. Fairies, Elves, Rakshasha's, Djinn, Leprechauns.
  
  Well yes we must earnestly be fair and since we cannot trust our senses those things could be out there and better yet they might hold more truth that your version of a god(whatever that is)
  
  Yes lets abandon science and empiricism to embrace whatever the human mind can invent that is total bullshit and does not exist.
  
  Your god(whatever that is) deserves no greater place in your world of fantasy than the above or unicorns or Fey, or Dryads etc.
  
  Perhaps the Greek gods (whatever they are) are the real ones let us brainstorm on the possiblity of the Greek gods.
  
  I think I will take empiricism thank you very much you can stick with the world of Unicorns as they may hold some great secret that could cure all the ills of the world so please hurry and go out and try to communicate with one.
  
  Please do not say Unicorns do not exist or I will pull out the magical end all be all of

  Pinning existence on what we can detect empirically is the height of hubris....as if we assume that we are the pinnacle of creation! lol. What we can't measure doesn't exist! lol.

  That is also a strawman.
  
  Who said we are the pinnacle of creation? Is that not what the bible says? I certainly do not believe we are the pinnacle of creation.

  
  strawman...hahaha. look at the pot! Your argument is almost entirely composed of strawmen.
  Unicorn's, fairies, dragons....don't see anyone here arguing there existence.....Don't see anyone here saying that empiricism be abandonded in entirety...only that as a stand alone way of reasoning it falls short.
  
  
  You demanded an ontology...and I gave you two. That you can't/don't or won't accept or understand them within your own narrow minded empirical world is not my fault.
  
  
  And yes you do infer we are the 'pinnacle' if what you accept as 'existing' is only what YOU can detect.

  You gave no ontology, zero. You posted to read Aquinas and Descartes so that is not posting an ontology. Those are not ontologies either as I asked what is god, what is it made of? Niether Aquinas nor Descartes answer those questions at all. You are good at evading though.
  
  I am not guilty of a strawman. You suggest that we cannot believe things merely because we can see it, feel it etc.
  
  SO no special pleading for your god. That is your line of "reasoning" and it can be applied then to any kooky idea such as Unicorns and the best you can do is try to accuse me of a strawman?
  
  No you simply failed and now have to resort to whatever you can because as usual you have provided nothing of any worth.
  
  This is YOUR quote.
  

  Pinning existence on what we can detect empirically is the height of hubris....as if we assume that we are the pinnacle of creation! lol. What we can't measure doesn't exist! lol.[/

  It is pathetic and can then be applied to things such as Unicorns, fairies, Elves etc.
  
  You will not get away with special pleading the above is nonsense and I am calling it out.
  
  What we can't measure doesn't exist LOL Oh how cute till I bring up Elves and Unicorns eh? Then it just sounds plain stupid which it is the truth, it hurts sometimes.
  
  So again I ask give me the PRIMARY ATTRIBUTES FOR A GOD. Aquinas and Descartes FAIL to do so.
  
  Please do tell what a god is.
  
  I want PRIMARY ATTRIBUTES.
  
  Not secondary or relational attributes.
  
  [/php]
• BCSbunk

  [php]

  HitsRus wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote:

  HitsRus wrote:
  BCSbunk wrote...
  "You arguments for a god (whatever one is) fall into this they are worthless and weak and nothing more than rationalizations. "
  
  Finally you are partially correct(minus the worthless and weak)...they are exactly "rationalist" in nature....but you will note that I added the empirical in my argument. This is essentially what Kant did when he 'merged' the competing philosophies of Rationalism and Empiricism.
  
  As for the Dragon argument....again the misconception that God's existence can be disproved by defeating the anthropromorphisms used to convey the message. My example of the concept of the Trinity is non anthropromorphic, but the church uses the concept of three persons in one to convey the message that there is a creator, a purpose and a manifestation here on earth. It does not speak only to Philosophy Phds from Stanford with 140 I.Q.s...it also has to communicate with sophomoric students from tOSU, people without high school degrees, and,... in the early days of the church...simple uneducated peasants. What is important is not the preciseness, but the message of relationship to the creator. For many, ritual, tradition and allegories help in that regard.

  
  An elegant concession speech.
  
  
  You appeal to well just because we can't see it, touch it, hear it or in any way shape or form detect it, it might be there.
  
  Well I can apply that utter nonsense to many things and need to give them equal rank. Fairies, Elves, Rakshasha's, Djinn, Leprechauns.
  
  Well yes we must earnestly be fair and since we cannot trust our senses those things could be out there and better yet they might hold more truth that your version of a god(whatever that is)
  
  Yes lets abandon science and empiricism to embrace whatever the human mind can invent that is total bullshit and does not exist.
  
  Your god(whatever that is) deserves no greater place in your world of fantasy than the above or unicorns or Fey, or Dryads etc.
  
  Perhaps the Greek gods (whatever they are) are the real ones let us brainstorm on the possiblity of the Greek gods.
  
  I think I will take empiricism thank you very much you can stick with the world of Unicorns as they may hold some great secret that could cure all the ills of the world so please hurry and go out and try to communicate with one.
  
  Please do not say Unicorns do not exist or I will pull out the magical end all be all of

  Pinning existence on what we can detect empirically is the height of hubris....as if we assume that we are the pinnacle of creation! lol. What we can't measure doesn't exist! lol.

  That is also a strawman.
  
  Who said we are the pinnacle of creation? Is that not what the bible says? I certainly do not believe we are the pinnacle of creation.

  
  strawman...hahaha. look at the pot! Your argument is almost entirely composed of strawmen.
  Unicorn's, fairies, dragons....don't see anyone here arguing there existence.....Don't see anyone here saying that empiricism be abandonded in entirety...only that as a stand alone way of reasoning it falls short.
  
  
  You demanded an ontology...and I gave you two. That you can't/don't or won't accept or understand them within your own narrow minded empirical world is not my fault.
  
  
  And yes you do infer we are the 'pinnacle' if what you accept as 'existing' is only what YOU can detect.

  You gave no ontology, zero. You posted to read Aquinas and Descartes so that is not posting an ontology. Those are not ontologies either as I asked what is god, what is it made of? Niether Aquinas nor Descartes answer those questions at all. You are good at evading though.
  
  I am not guilty of a strawman. You suggest that we cannot believe things merely because we can see it, feel it etc.
  
  SO no special pleading for your god. That is your line of "reasoning" and it can be applied then to any kooky idea such as Unicorns and the best you can do is try to accuse me of a strawman?
  
  No you simply failed and now have to resort to whatever you can because as usual you have provided nothing of any worth.
  
  This is YOUR quote.
  

  Pinning existence on what we can detect empirically is the height of hubris....as if we assume that we are the pinnacle of creation! lol. What we can't measure doesn't exist! lol.[/

  It is pathetic and can then be applied to things such as Unicorns, fairies, Elves etc.
  
  You will not get away with special pleading the above is nonsense and I am calling it out.
  
  What we can't measure doesn't exist LOL Oh how cute till I bring up Elves and Unicorns eh? Then it just sounds plain stupid which it is the truth, it hurts sometimes.
  
  So again I ask give me the PRIMARY ATTRIBUTES FOR A GOD. Aquinas and Descartes FAIL to do so.
  
  Please do tell what a god is.
  
  I want PRIMARY ATTRIBUTES.
  
  Not secondary or relational attributes.
• HitsRus

  

  But I'm NOT applying them to unicorn's...I've applied a rational constructiuve arguement to a specific...and YOU are making generalizations...a logical fail.
  
  
  Both Descartes and Aquinas and others provide ontologies for God...Google them, genius. Google is empirical...you should be able to handle it.
  That their ontologies don't fit into your narrow empirical box is not my concern. I've never maintained that God is empirical within this universe.
  ....and seriously...do you deny that because something is beyond your capabilities to sense, experience or measure that it can't possibly exist?
  
  Here, chew on this if you dare.
  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/view-gates.html
• BCSbunk

  HitsRus wrote: But I'm NOT applying them to unicorn's...I've applied a rational constructiuve arguement to a specific...and YOU are making generalizations...a logical fail.
  
  
  Both Descartes and Aquinas and others provide ontologies for God...Google them, genius. Google is empirical...you should be able to handle it.
  That their ontologies don't fit into your narrow empirical box is not my concern. I've never maintained that God is empirical within this universe.
  ....and seriously...do you deny that because something is beyond your capabilities to sense, experience or measure that it can't possibly exist?
  
  Here, chew on this if you dare.
  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/view-gates.html

  No you suggested that empiricism is not the best way to go about things and countered it with this.
  

  Pinning existence on what we can detect empirically is the height of hubris....as if we assume that we are the pinnacle of creation! lol. What we can't measure doesn't exist! lol.[/

  
  Lets apply that WAY of thinking which is opposite of empiricism to the proposition That the Earth rides on the back of a giant turtle..
  
  Well I have seen pictures from space that show the earth and there is no Turtle.
  
  Oh yeah? Well it is an invisible Turtle.
  
  Or lets apply it to Unicorns or elves.
  
  The problem is you offered this POS idea as an alternative to empiricism and it is uber fail.
• BCSbunk

  HitsRus wrote: But I'm NOT applying them to unicorn's...I've applied a rational constructiuve arguement to a specific...and YOU are making generalizations...a logical fail.
  
  
  Both Descartes and Aquinas and others provide ontologies for God...Google them, genius. Google is empirical...you should be able to handle it.
  That their ontologies don't fit into your narrow empirical box is not my concern. I've never maintained that God is empirical within this universe.
  ....and seriously...do you deny that because something is beyond your capabilities to sense, experience or measure that it can't possibly exist?
  
  Here, chew on this if you dare.
  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/view-gates.html

  Chew on a article on string theory?
  
  Their ontologies do not fit the current model of existants.
  
  They DO NOT list Primary attributes.
  
  This is not narrow minded this is the normal accepted terminology of existants. The law of identity.
  
  You need Primary attributes Secondary attributes and relational attributes.
  
  Secondary and relational are only important or matter if you have PRIMARY attributes.
  
  Things like Perfect, Creator, Immutable etc are not PRIMARY attributes.
  
  Aquinas nor Descartes give PRIMARY attributes.
  
  I do not want to know what god (what ever they are) is not, I want to know what it is and your "ontologies" have failed to produce such information.
  
  Aquinas applied such terms as “knowledge”,” “life,” “will,” “love,” “justice and mercy,” and “power” to the concept of god (whatever that is), and these qualities are clearly positive in nature. But we still have serious problems. Most of the positive qualities commonly attributed to god (whatever that is) are of secondary importance because they refer to God’s personality rather than his metaphysical nature as an existing being.
  
  Wisdom, love, knowledge, power these may be fine qualities, but just what are they qualities of???
  
  What is the nature of the being possessing them? Affirmative theology, if it is to rescue god(whatever that is) from the oblivion of the unknowable, must accomplish more than list secondary characteristics. If it cannot, affirmative theology is, at best, a useless device.
  
  Please stop with the Aquinas gave a complete ontology NONSENSE.
  
  WHAT IS A GOD. No one ever has answered this question.
  
  Please follow the law of identity which requires PRIMARY ATTRIBUTES or all the secondary and relational attributes are meaningless.
  
  Belief in a god (whatever that is) is not rational. It belongs with nonsense like Unicorns, Elves, Fairies and other mystical magical entities.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Belief in God is irrational. It is supposed to be. It is supposed to take faith to believe in Him, not proof. It is the same as believing that the universe is eternal and has always existed. That is really irrational, since it is impossible due to the laws of physics. It takes quite a leap of faith to believe that. It is the same as believing the universe exploded out of nothing. That is also impossible and takes a huge leap of faith to believe. Just about every person on Earth believes one of these three ideas, and all are equally irrational.